So...if I see a guy blow another guy's head off, he doesn't get a trial, that means he didn't do it?oug wrote:
Without proper trials, these people have not committed anything, is that so hard to understand?
Erm, if you see a guy blow another guy's head off I'm pretty sure you could convict him in a court of law...M.O.A.B wrote:
So...if I see a guy blow another guy's head off, he doesn't get a trial, that means he didn't do it?oug wrote:
Without proper trials, these people have not committed anything, is that so hard to understand?
No, It means give him a trial and sentence him, not lock him up indefinitely without giving him a proper trial in which his guilt can be proven for all to see.M.O.A.B wrote:
So...if I see a guy blow another guy's head off, he doesn't get a trial, that means he didn't do it?oug wrote:
Without proper trials, these people have not committed anything, is that so hard to understand?
Comprende?
What do you think marine:
Are those held at Gitmo treated better\worse than what they deserve?
Are those held at Gitmo treated better\worse than what they deserve?
well according to our parrot Oug it is a german death camp, so what do i know.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Are those held at Gitmo treated better\worse than what they deserve?
Last edited by usmarine (2008-11-11 05:30:50)
One can always put more strictures on one's behavior than required by the GC. The GC states the minimum that must be done under various circumstances.Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought your Supreme Court had corrected you on that.FEOS wrote:
There's no requirement for a trial at all absent extenuating circumstances...why can you not understand that? It's really not difficult.
Since the SCOTUS said trials had to be done, they are being done. See how that works? The US took the minimum standard set by the GC and exceeded it...yet you lot keep talking about utter nonesense, making shit up right and left without bothering to research the topic one iota.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Seems you don't care one way or the other.usmarine wrote:
well according to our parrot Oug it is a german death camp, so what do i know.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Are those held at Gitmo treated better\worse than what they deserve?
I think most if not all of them probably do deserve to be locked away forever, but I also think they deserve the right to a fair trial.
Closing down Gitmo is a nice gesture from Obama, but that's all it is. A gesture. It isn't going to change anything, at all.
Absolutely, and as far as I can tell, they are legally detained. There are only 4 detainees from Iran, so the majority are legally (I would argue not morally, though - certainly not within the spirit of the law) detained.FEOS wrote:
For Iran specifically, but there are detainees from countries other than Iran there.Bertster7 wrote:
Or has no diplomatic relations with said signatory country, which is the case here.FEOS wrote:
Only so long as the US is engaged in combat with said signatory country...which is not the case here.Bertster7 wrote:
So long as the terrorists in question are nationals of a state that is signatory, that is not an issue. However, since most states involved have normal diplomatic relations with the US which means they are not covered (except in the case of Iran, as I've outlined).
It's strange that you've linked to the 3rd Geneva convention, not the page for all the Geneva conventions as a whole.FEOS wrote:
What's strange about it? It contains the articles that are under discussion re GITMO.Berster7 wrote:
Fair enough. Strange you linked to that page in that case. Maybe you should update that.FEOS wrote:
Don't be pedantic. I'm talking about reading all the applicable agreements that are collectively referred to as "the Geneva Convention".
You put:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
If talking about "all the applicable agreements that are collectively referred to as "the Geneva Convention"", it seems odd not to have put:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Can you see how that caused my initial confusion on the matter?
if i hear fair trial one more time........god damn.
here is one tiny idea. use your time and energy to get fair trials for women in the M.E and around the world first, then worry about terrorists.
here is one tiny idea. use your time and energy to get fair trials for women in the M.E and around the world first, then worry about terrorists.
But most of them are backwards shithole countries. Big responsible 1st world nations need to lead the way with things like this. Not provide more excuses for these tin-pot nations to hide behind.usmarine wrote:
if i hear fair trial one more time........god damn.
here is one tiny idea. use your time and energy to get fair trials for women in the M.E and around the world first, then worry about terrorists.
It's called leading by example.
Have you detained many Middle Eastern women in Guantanamo bay? Fair enough, fair trials for them too I say.usmarine wrote:
if i hear fair trial one more time........god damn.
here is one tiny idea. use your time and energy to get fair trials for women in the M.E and around the world first, then worry about terrorists.
so because its difficult, you pick the easy target? got it
I really don't see what's confusing. I think I clarified why I linked to that particular Convention...it is the one that is most applicable to this discussion re detainees and their status.Bertster7 wrote:
It's strange that you've linked to the 3rd Geneva convention, not the page for all the Geneva conventions as a whole.FEOS wrote:
What's strange about it? It contains the articles that are under discussion re GITMO.Bertster7 wrote:
Fair enough. Strange you linked to that page in that case. Maybe you should update that.
You put:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
If talking about "all the applicable agreements that are collectively referred to as "the Geneva Convention"", it seems odd not to have put:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Can you see how that caused my initial confusion on the matter?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
no. i see you want to be an ass also.Braddock wrote:
Have you detained many Middle Eastern women in Guantanamo bay? Fair enough, fair trials for them too I say.
What's confusing? It looked like you were refering to just the one document, since you had made no mention of any of the others in your post and your link was specifically to the 3rd convention.FEOS wrote:
I really don't see what's confusing. I think I clarified why I linked to that particular Convention...it is the one that is most applicable to this discussion re detainees and their status.Bertster7 wrote:
It's strange that you've linked to the 3rd Geneva convention, not the page for all the Geneva conventions as a whole.FEOS wrote:
What's strange about it? It contains the articles that are under discussion re GITMO.
You put:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
If talking about "all the applicable agreements that are collectively referred to as "the Geneva Convention"", it seems odd not to have put:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Can you see how that caused my initial confusion on the matter?
If you have only mentioned, referenced and linked to the 3rd convention how are people supposed to know you meant all of them?
No. What you are saying is two wrongs make a right. In other words... they don't give women a fair deal so we're not going to give anyone we detain a fair deal.usmarine wrote:
no. i see you want to be an ass also.Braddock wrote:
Have you detained many Middle Eastern women in Guantanamo bay? Fair enough, fair trials for them too I say.
That's not quite what he's saying.Braddock wrote:
No. What you are saying is two wrongs make a right. In other words... they don't give women a fair deal so we're not going to give anyone we detain a fair deal.usmarine wrote:
no. i see you want to be an ass also.Braddock wrote:
Have you detained many Middle Eastern women in Guantanamo bay? Fair enough, fair trials for them too I say.
It's simpler than that. He's saying "they don't do it, why should we?".
The simple answer is because you're supposed to be better than them.
no, you are both wrong. what i am saying is there are WAY bigger issues in the world affecting truly innocent people everyday. but, we can continue to fight over terrorists. thats a good battle.
Except we can deal directly with this problem because you are the ones causing it.usmarine wrote:
no, you are both wrong. what i am saying is there are WAY bigger issues in the world affecting truly innocent people everyday. but, we can continue to fight over terrorists. thats a good battle.
causing what?
Well, that's just retarded.usmarine wrote:
no, you are both wrong. what i am saying is there are WAY bigger issues in the world affecting truly innocent people everyday. but, we can continue to fight over terrorists. thats a good battle.
ya...thats retarded. argue over terrorists and not women and children. fuck sakes. you guys are sad.
No the SCOTUS found the existing laws of the US were not being adhered to, and corrected the situation.FEOS wrote:
Since the SCOTUS said trials had to be done, they are being done. See how that works? The US took the minimum standard set by the GC and exceeded it...
They aren't terrorists yet, they are people accused of terrorism but not yet brought to trial.USM wrote:
we can continue to fight over terrorists
There is a big difference.
They may yet be released without charge, like 200 already have been.
Fuck Israel
tell that to the OPusmarine wrote:
ya...thats retarded. argue over terrorists and not women and children. fuck sakes. you guys are sad.
he's the one who mentioned rope in the house of the hanged
ƒ³
Yeah, it's retarded. The very idea that because many innocent peoples human rights are violated in backwards shithole countries that are outside 1st world influence or control means that human rights of those who are potentially innocent are irrelevant is utterly retarded.usmarine wrote:
ya...thats retarded. argue over terrorists and not women and children. fuck sakes. you guys are sad.