The High Commissioner on Human Rights for the United Nations (after which statement the Bush administration pressured Kofi Annan to fire her.) So then her replacement learned to toe the line .... or not. Whoops: "How can we even conceive that on this planet there exist square kilometres of land where no law applies?" asked Sergio Vieira de Mello in response to last week's court ruling.
posted on March 24, 2003 03:54:36 PM new
"Many countries have complained that the conditions of detention at Guantanamo - initially in mesh wire cells that critics likened to animal cages, and being held without charges or counsel - were inhumane and violated Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war."
The statement is meaningless. If they are deemed POWs, then the war is not over just because Afghanistan fell. Their terrorist compatriots are still operatiing. Relasing them because Afghanistan fell would be like releasing German POWs because France was liberated. The terrorists are still waging war.
If they are seen as criminals, it gets even more confusing. In criminal law, the jurisdiction is where the crime occurred. Where did their crimes occur ? In NY, PA, DC, Afghanistan ? If we charge them with conspiracy for all the acts, we have to include Indonesia, Africa and Yemen.
I would say they are more POWs than criminal detainees.And as pointed out before, the GC did not anticipate how international terrorists were to be treated. I have seen no evidence of treatment not in accord with the GC.
posted on March 24, 2003 04:59:34 PM new
Then REAMOND, I suggest you get your head out of your a$$hole, wipe the crap from your eyesockets and open your eyes....
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
posted on March 24, 2003 05:13:15 PM new
HEY!!! It had to be said to someone! It was just too easy....
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
posted on March 24, 2003 05:25:49 PM new
"How can we even conceive that on this planet there exist square kilometres of land where no law applies?"
Laws have not applied to Cuba for 44 years. Gitmo is in Cuba therefore the same turning of the face they give Castro should be applied to Gitmo.
Those almighty UNenr's should concentrate looking on the other side of the base's fence for some real HUMANITARIAN VIOLATIONS and stop talking SH#T.
[ edited by keiichem on Mar 24, 2003 05:26 PM ]
posted on March 24, 2003 05:49:06 PM new
Keiichem - GITMO is not Cuban controled. It is controled by the Americans. Or should we stoop to the same behavior we conndemn others for as long as we can hide behide the guise of location? It should not be a matter is legal technicalities. As a world leader, we should take the moral highground, not look for loopholes with which to avoid it.
posted on March 24, 2003 06:23:09 PM new
Yes i agree, but the UN wants to be the world leader. Stating :How can we even conceive that on this planet there exist square kilometres of land where no law applies?"
shows the hypocrisy and unworthiness of them to even open their mouths.
Gitmo is part of Cuba. So here are the same square kilometers that has lived with no applicable laws for 44 years.
You should ask what a prisoner of thought and conscience in Cuba thinks about the UN. About how they are more worried about killers than them.
No, it is not up to them or any body or thing else to offer up excessive rights to killers with out a country. These people are givin more than enough for their miserable excistance.
posted on March 24, 2003 06:25:22 PM new
The situation is not "legal technicalities" any more than due process is a legal technicality.
Having "control" of an area does not grant criminal jurisdiction. We have military bases around the world, and for non-American personnel crimes committed on those bases, the country that hosts the base has jurisdiction.
The judge was exceeding wise in not taking jurisdiction. It is one thing to claim jurisdiction, it is another to enforce it. The judge had no long arm to exert power over GITMO and he knew it. And proceeding as a criminal case would be impossible. There would be no way for the defendants to exert subpoena over Afghans, not to mention military personnel.
The best fit would be POWs, and there is nothing in the GC to cover international terrorists.
posted on March 24, 2003 07:05:34 PM new
Wow your ignorance of how military bases are run is astounding neonmania... GITMO is a US Military Installation surrounded by Cubans who would love to see us gone...
However to make it easier, those people are not Prisoners of War, they are detainees the Geneva Convention does not provide for terrorists, only upfront armed combatants.
They have no rights under the Geneva Convention or any rights under the Constitution, as they are not US Citizens, however they are under Military Jurisdiction which does not have to give them any rights what so ever.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 24, 2003 09:52 PM ]
posted on March 24, 2003 07:19:48 PM new
There is no due process question when the military has control of a foreign national on foreign soil. The only technicality is understanding criminal jurisdiction. Do note that the American citizen captured in Afghanistan was tried in the criminal courts.
What would the US military do with a captured Iranian or al Qaeda or Saudi Arabian entering Iraq and attacking US troops ? What is their status ? Are they soldiers or criminals ? The terrorists captured in Afghanistan offer no easy classification either for the same reasons.
It is a safe bet they can not come under US criminal prosecution. They have never set foot in the US and I don't know how you can prove the underlings a part of the 9-11 conspiracy.
They fit POW closest, but they do not meet the criteria for POWs.
posted on March 24, 2003 09:32:24 PM new
"No, it is not up to them or any body or thing else to offer up excessive rights to killers with out a country."
No - sorry. Some of these other countries have complained quite loudly at their citizens being detained this way. It's usually buried on about page 12.
What it amounts to is the US finding a convoluted legal reasoning that allows them to do things that are shameful and illegal under the law in this country just like the countries they are denouncing as evil do.
They may or may not be ruled legal in the thin and fuzzy area of international law but they are completely lacking in the honor and justice that our government tries to drape themselves with before the world.
They want to be the world renowned good guys - pillars of democracy and christian principals but still be able to take people off the street without charge and torture them and hold them indefinitely like a third world dictator. Won't work - too many people see the hypocrisy.
The same people who think these actions are just fine would be horrified if a criminal killed someone on an unclaimed island out in the ocean and said "Oh - It was not on any countries territory so the laws do not apply to me."
You'd claim the principals of justice override technicalities. Unless you are hot to get away with something.
These are the sort of actions that fall apart as a legal defense when taken before a war crimes court. The only time they are acceptable is when the perp is too powerful to be brought to justice.
[ edited by gravid on Mar 24, 2003 09:48 PM ]
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 24, 2003 09:52 PM ]