Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

"David Nicholls" wrote in message
...

"TinCanMan" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:

Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad,
and
that wont always land you in paradise.

Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
without charge or representation, or apology come to that.

This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?

Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.

Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks
enjoying
the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,
having
been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be
detained
in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You
don't
get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time
they
will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm
sure
you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in
the
issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill
hostillities
are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on
USENET
is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to
your
elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.

If they are POW's then they should be covered by the various Geneva
Conventions - but the US has explicitly denied them the rights under those
Conventions.

David


They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's

In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
purports to support it says:

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

You can find the rest at
http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:
:
:They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
:
:In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
urports to support it says:
:
:Article 9
:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:
:
:They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
:
:In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
urports to support it says:
:
:Article 9
:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?

I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
(given away free with large fries) or on American television where
words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.

ar·bi·trary (adjective)

1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
and not fixed by law.

2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of
power : ruling by absolute authority

2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often
tyrannical exercise of power

2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering
other people's wishes:

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Jim Watt wrote:
:
::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:
::
::They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
::
::In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
:urports to support it says:
::
::Article 9
::No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
:
:And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?
:
:I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
given away free with large fries) or on American television where
:words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.
:
:ar·bi·trary (adjective)
:
:1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
: and not fixed by law.

They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by
both treaty and law.

:2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of
: power : ruling by absolute authority

Restrained by the rules already put in place for the holding of these
folks and the conduct of their hearings.

:2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often
: tyrannical exercise of power

This would appear to have been the property of the folks being held,
not the folks holding them.

:2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering
: other people's wishes:

See? Like I said. Not arbitrary.

You've proved two things he

1) You can read.

2) Your comprehension isn't up to your reading.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:57:44 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Jim Watt wrote:
:
::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:
::
::They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
::
::In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
:urports to support it says:
::
::Article 9
::No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
:
:And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?
:
:I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
given away free with large fries) or on American television where
:words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.
:
:ar·bi·trary (adjective)
:
:1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
: and not fixed by law.

They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by
both treaty and law.

I believe the GC prohibits torturing prisioners to extract
information.

See? Like I said. Not arbitrary.

Strange it seems arbitary to me, indeed the reason they
are in Cuba is because your Government is anxious about the
legal basis of its grubby little operation.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

snip

I came across this statement in the house in my travels;

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):

On 3 July, the United States designated six detainees, including
two British nationals held at Guantanamo Bay, as eligible for trial
under a military commission. We have strong reservations about the
military commission. We have raised, and will continue to raise them
energetically with the US. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the US
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, about that over the weekend and
will speak to him again in the next few days.

So far, neither of the detainees has been charged. However, we have
made it clear to the US that we expect the process to fulfil
internationally accepted standards of a fair trial. We will follow
the process carefully.

The US is aware of our fundamental opposition to the use of the
death penalty in all circumstances. If there is any suggestion that
the death penalty might be sought in these cases, we would raise the
strongest possible objections.

As regards the conditions in which all those prisoners are held, the
Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, made it clear that he
regards the situation in Guantanamo Bay as unsatisfactory.

+++


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
news
snip

I came across this statement in the house in my travels;

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):

On 3 July, the United States designated six detainees, including
two British nationals held at Guantanamo Bay, as eligible for trial
under a military commission. We have strong reservations about the
military commission. We have raised, and will continue to raise them
energetically with the US. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the US
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, about that over the weekend and
will speak to him again in the next few days.

So far, neither of the detainees has been charged. However, we have
made it clear to the US that we expect the process to fulfil
internationally accepted standards of a fair trial. We will follow
the process carefully.

Completly understandable, we would do the same if the situation was
reversed.

The US is aware of our fundamental opposition to the use of the
death penalty in all circumstances. If there is any suggestion that
the death penalty might be sought in these cases, we would raise the
strongest possible objections.

Noted, thank you. How ever in our laws there is a place for the death
penelty.
Providing they get a fair trail, the punishment is up to the judge
depending on the crime of course.
If they committed a capital crime, to bad, so sad.

As regards the conditions in which all those prisoners are held, the
Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, made it clear that he
regards the situation in Guantanamo Bay as unsatisfactory.

What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..
I understand they get food, shelter, water, medical care, exercise, are
allowed to pratice there religion.
They are questioned wearing restraints sure, but they are not beat or
tourtured...

So what is the beef? It is a detention compounnd not the Ritz. What no
cable TV?

Jim

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..

The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..

The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com


Oh I see... Now I get it... you disagree with our (the US) Kangroo Kourt
and you agree with the (EU- Brussles ) Kangroo Kourt?
It guess it just depends if you control the Kangroos (judges) very
intresting.

Jim