BF2S Forums Will the millions Guantanamo inmates win be used for terrorism?

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Did you hit SUBMIT prematurely or something? Or are you simply agreeing with me?

The portion you attempted to highlight in red simply says that Parties who are bound to the Convention shall behave toward each other in accordance with said convention. It says nothing about those who are not bound by it or cease abiding by it.

Read the highlighted portion and the bolded portion. Bound by the Convention only to the extent that the other party abides by it as well.

Period.

End of discussion.

So all you need to do is make sure your detainees are not registered as affiliates of any nation bound by the Geneva convention and you can do what you like with them, hence the classification term "enemy combatant" and hence the cover-all term "war on terror" i.e. no specific enemy, no specific country, no need to worry about the Geneva convention... and because you don't let them have proper trials no one can prove that they weren't in contravention of the Geneva convention themselves on an individual basis.

Nice little system you've got there.

Or you could just turn them back over to their home countries where they will likely be detained without trial, tortured, and executed.

Except we can't do that because it violates international treaties.

And for you to say "no need to worry about the Geneva convention" is ridiculous...and shows you clearly don't comprehend the language in the Geneva Convention--which is being followed. Perhaps the GC needs to be updated with a new Article on non-state actors. Until such time as it is updated, the current course is just as valid as any other.

I actually do think it needs updating because the situation as it is know appears to be an exploitation of the grey area that exists in it.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

So all you need to do is make sure your detainees are not registered as affiliates of any nation bound by the Geneva convention and you can do what you like with them, hence the classification term "enemy combatant" and hence the cover-all term "war on terror" i.e. no specific enemy, no specific country, no need to worry about the Geneva convention... and because you don't let them have proper trials no one can prove that they weren't in contravention of the Geneva convention themselves on an individual basis.

Nice little system you've got there.

Or you could just turn them back over to their home countries where they will likely be detained without trial, tortured, and executed.

Except we can't do that because it violates international treaties.

And for you to say "no need to worry about the Geneva convention" is ridiculous...and shows you clearly don't comprehend the language in the Geneva Convention--which is being followed. Perhaps the GC needs to be updated with a new Article on non-state actors. Until such time as it is updated, the current course is just as valid as any other.

I actually do think it needs updating because the situation as it is know appears to be an exploitation of the grey area that exists in it.

I'm sure it does...but following the "logic" in another thread, the drafters of the GC should've known this would happen and developed language to counter it the last time it was updated.

But you still haven't addressed the paradoxical situation of us not releasing some of these gomers to their home countries simply because they would be tortured or killed outright if we did. How exactly does that mesh up with them being tortured and whatnot at Gitmo? I mean, if we really were torturing them there, why would we care if the supposed same thing happened to them elsewhere?

FEOS wrote:

Or you could just turn them back over to their home countries where they will likely be detained without trial, tortured, and executed.

Except we can't do that because it violates international treaties.

Wrong...  we do renditions all the time.  Uzbekistan is a country we have a deal with where we are able to apprehend people in other countries and then have them tortured in Uzbekistan.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Or you could just turn them back over to their home countries where they will likely be detained without trial, tortured, and executed.

Except we can't do that because it violates international treaties.

Wrong...  we do renditions all the time.  Uzbekistan is a country we have a deal with where we are able to apprehend people in other countries and then have them tortured in Uzbekistan.

Put up or shut up. Provide evidence that we are doing that today.

Guantanamo is one of many. It's just a superficial media piece as far as Barack's agenda is concerned.