Karl`s PC Help Forums

47 should be held indefinitely without trial
marymary100 - 22-1-2010 at 20:22

Really? A fair trial for all, unless you don't have enough evidence to convict apparently.


Daz - 23-1-2010 at 01:37

It's not ideal really, is it. However, in the circumstances, given the horrible damage these people (terrorists) can do, I'd rather they remained detained until evidence is sufficient enough to prove things one way or another...

That won't go down well with some, but there you go. :(


scholar - 23-1-2010 at 03:03

In the course of warfare, soldiers normally don't arrest the enemy, collect evidence against him, give him a lawyer, hand the case over to a prosecutor, and leave their role in battle to testify in court as often as needed. In fact, I would think that would be a pretty stupid way to conduct any war.

Usually, you capture or kill the enemy, and hold the captives until the war is over (unless a prisoner exchange is arranged).

In the U.S, those captured in war who for any reason needed to be tried, were always tried by military tribunals. The tribunals were of such a nature as to administer justice without conferring the rights of U.S. citizens upon people who were not, and were better able to guard matters of security.


marymary100 - 23-1-2010 at 09:20

Thing is, they're having no trial at all not even a military one.


Quaver - 23-1-2010 at 10:44

Obviously if they are going to kill people, then I don't want them to be out. But what if they were innocent...:(


John_Little - 23-1-2010 at 11:09

As a lot of them seem to have been. I think there may be a few who are quite up front about their involvement in the fight back against the West and their determination to continue that fight if they are released.

I would be surprised if any of the detainees who claim to be innocent are lying. Since the ones who are involved in repelling the invaders appear to believe they are doing this for "God" and are proud of their contribution to their cause.


giron - 23-1-2010 at 11:32

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Thing is, they're having no trial at all not even a military one.


Why waste money on a trial, in fact, why waste money keeping them locked up?

It's far cheaper to execute them, the fact that they may be innocent is irrelevant, they aren't going to get any justice from the American Government, anyway. waggyfinger


marymary100 - 23-1-2010 at 12:08

It would seem that this position has the backing of the American people as well so it is hardly surprising when this is used as part of the rhetoric against the "Great Satan".


scholar - 23-1-2010 at 20:18

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Thing is, they're having no trial at all not even a military one.
When enemy fighters are captured during war, they are held captive until the war is over, and then released--no trial is necessary. Think back to other wars--when the British captured German soldiers in the first World War, was a trial necessary, before you held them captive? No, you didn't. When a British soldier was captured by the Germans, did they need a trial before they could be held captive? No, of course not.

A trial is only necessary when there are special circumstances to consider--for example, if a person is a spy or traitor, causing harm but not in uniform. In such cases, there may be a trial for capital punishment or for captivity beyond the length of the war.


scholar - 23-1-2010 at 20:48

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
I would be surprised if any of the detainees who claim to be innocent are lying. Since the ones who are involved in repelling the invaders appear to believe they are doing this for "God" and are proud of their contribution to their cause.
35% of those who have been released have returned to fighting in the cause of Islamic jihad. Do you really think that they all were candid about being guilty of terrorism, and those in charge said, "We'll release them to fight against us, anyway"?

I think it makes much more sense to think that they tried to pass themselves off as innocent and harmless. Then, if the authorities were not certain of their guilt, and released them, they showed their true allegience by returning to fighting against our side.

Does this make sense to you, JL?


marymary100 - 23-1-2010 at 21:21

Guantanamo Bay violates Nuremberg principle and it is against the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

You can't have it both ways, they are either prisoners of war in which case it is very clear how they should be held and treated or they are citizens and other rights should be afforded.

Are they still moving them to Illinois?

Is it true that the Haiti victims are going to be sent to Gitmo?


scholar - 23-1-2010 at 23:08

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
they are either prisoners of war in which case it is very clear how they should be held and treated or they are citizens and other rights should be afforded.
No, these are not the only two possibilities. Do you really not know any better?

When a state of war exists between nations, the fighters of each are to answer to the government and command structure of their respective nations. They must follow the rules of war. They must wear uniforms. Uniformed soldiers of another nation may surrender (for example, if they are ordered to, or if they are captured in combat), and are then entitled to the privileges of Prisoner Of War status under the Geneva Conventions.

The unlawful combatants which were have been captured in Iraq or Afghanistan do not meet the standards to be considered Prisoners Of War. They do not answer to the lawful government of any nation. They do not answer to the command structure of any nation's military. They do not distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing the uniform of any nation's fighters. They do not follow the rules of war.

If they WERE Prisoners-Of-War, they would be entitled to the privlleges that come with it (respect for their military rank, for example. I seem to recall officer's pay is part of it, as well). Since they are lower than POWs, because they do not live up to the requirements for that classification, they are being treated higher than the status they've earned when they are held captive as if they were POWs (instead of unlawful combatants).


And they are certainly not citizens of the U.S., that they should have all the rights which are part of U.S. citizenship. Those who blow up vehicles in the Middle East do not get to have U.S. lawyers and the protection against self-incrimination that a U.S. shoplifter gets.


giron - 23-1-2010 at 23:09

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100


Is it true that the Haiti victims are going to be sent to Gitmo?


It's good news if they are, it's a secure home for the rest of their lives, can't risk letting them back out, just in case they might be terrorists.


marymary100 - 24-1-2010 at 01:02

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
they are either prisoners of war in which case it is very clear how they should be held and treated or they are citizens and other rights should be afforded.
Do you really not know any better?

<SNIP>.


This is yet another example of why so many people have refused to engage with you in discussion scholar - to the extent that some have left this forum. Try and be both interesting and polite and you'll have more of the discussion which you seem to prefer, perhaps.

I did not say that they were citizens of the US. I should imagine that after their treatment by your country that that would be the last thing they would want. By citizen I meant civilian. You(pl) can't have it both ways. They are either prisoners of war or civilians.

There cannot be an indefinite state of limbo.

By all means find them guilty and imprison them, just do it with some semblance of what is supposed to make your country better than theirs in the first place.


scholar - 24-1-2010 at 02:04

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
They are either prisoners of war or civilians.
No, not so. Those are not the only categories.

They can be people eligible for POW status, as I outlined above (military uniforms, military command structure, answerable to a national government, etc., as outlined in the Geneva Conventions).

Or, they can be subject to captivity for unlawful combat against military forces that do conduct themselves in accord with the rules of war. But, they do not get rewarded for dispising the rules of war. For example, we don't say, "Because you don't wear uniforms, and so hide among innocent men, women, and children, with the result that they will sometimes be killed when a rocket is sent after you--well, you get a lawyer (which POWs do not get), and you get a trial (which POWs don't get), and we have the burden of producing evidence and testimony against you (which POWs don't get)."

They are LESS than POWs, they are unlawful combatants. They don't get treated better than POWs, by getting a trial, unless the military decides there is a reason to use a military tribunal.
Quote:
There cannot be an indefinite state of limbo.
In warfare, POWs are returned when the war is over. When the Islamic terrorist jihad is over, when Muslim extremists are not promoting killing of the West or Christians, those who have not been tried and sentenced for heinous acts beyond what is allowed in war will be set free. I have read that, in history, captives have been required to give an oath that they will not resume fighting.


marymary100 - 24-1-2010 at 09:27

The point is - you have not proved their guilt.

Odd that you can't see that.


giron - 24-1-2010 at 17:03

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100


Odd that you can't see that.


I don't find it odd, in fact I'd find it rather disturbing if scholar actually made an intelligent reply to a straightforward question.


marymary100 - 24-1-2010 at 17:57

Oddly refreshing.


scholar - 24-1-2010 at 22:54

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
The point is - you have not proved their guilt.
Of course. When has taking captives in a war ever required proving guilt? Answer: never. You don't arrest the person who attacks you, you kill or capture him--neither requires a trial.

Marymary, are you going to tell me that when British soldiers go into combat, they arrest the enemy fighters, tell them they have rights as if they were British citizens, provide them with lawyers, and gather evidence against them? Or, do the Brits shoot back, and then take captive the ones who don't escape? I'll be shocked if I learn real-life British soldiers confuse combat with court proceedings.


marymary100 - 24-1-2010 at 23:00

We don't imprison them indefinitely without trial - you do.


scholar - 25-1-2010 at 03:21

I think that when British soldiers captured enemies in the World Wars, they were kept captive until the end of the war (unless there was a prisoner exchange). I believe that when the war with the Islamic jihadists is over, prisoners who are not criminally guilty will be released as well.

When writers say that the U.S. will keep the prisoners "indefinitely," or if officlals themselves say that, I think they are speaking imprecisely. I believe the captives will be held indefinitely (without specific time limit) until the war ends When there is no more Islamic jihad against us (whether it takes ten years, or a hundred years), I think we will be glad to release the former unlawful combatants to go to peaceful lives. But, I do not expect the jihadists to surrender any time soon.


marymary100 - 25-1-2010 at 07:07

We also follow the Geneva Convention in the way we treat those we capture. We don't transport them to a no-man's land so that we can break international law.


John_Little - 25-1-2010 at 08:29

My dad was in a prisoner of war camp - in Britain. but then he was a guard. He got on quite well with the Germans and never kept them caged up and forced to squat for hours on the ground in orange jump suits. Neither did he do any waterboarding or other forms of torture.


Mary2 - 25-1-2010 at 12:56

He must find it easy to live with himself then unlike that American ex-guard we highlighted recently.


John_Little - 25-1-2010 at 13:04

I got a German belt from him but I lost it.


Mary2 - 25-1-2010 at 13:06

You'll get a belt from your dad has a different connotation up here.


giron - 26-1-2010 at 09:42

Isn't that sort of thing slightly illegal, these days? shocked_yellow


Mary2 - 26-1-2010 at 11:09

Allegedly.