Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/8/04 01:53 PM, H-Dawg wrote:

You only have to prove someone's guilty. Otherwise, they are innocent until proven guilty, at least for U.S. citizens. But I guess we don't judge "foreigners" as being as deserving of human rights as we "higher" American beings! (*gag*)

First of all, this is in context of the law. According to the law, everyone is equal, but that just isn't so. And the law does not use the same definitions as we do, thats why when you see a bill they have several definitions at the begining.

Second, they are POWs, not "foreigners".

www.amnesty.org
& prolly www.amnestyusa.org

I wouldent be surprised if Bush formed the american nazi party.

The afganastan or iraqi solderis are just as human as the american soldiers, its stupid to think all forein soldiers are heartless killers.

Why dont the americans just keep all civilian prisoners in jail forever without trial so they cant blow up stuff when they get out?
Its no different. Dont try to justify injustice, thats Bush's job.

At 2/6/04 12:50 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:
even though the VAST majority of people in afghanistan were not white.

Islamophobia - the new black.

At 2/8/04 02:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: Second, they are POWs, not "foreigners".

No, they arne't POW's. POW's are entitled to certain rights, which they aren't given.

At 2/9/04 04:03 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/8/04 02:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: Second, they are POWs, not "foreigners".

No, they arne't POW's. POW's are entitled to certain rights, which they aren't given.

Yes they are POW's, just because they are denied thier rights doesn't mean they aren't POW's. A prisoner is still a prisoner if he doesn't get a fair trial.

At 2/9/04 04:51 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/9/04 04:03 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/8/04 02:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: Second, they are POWs, not "foreigners".

No, they arne't POW's. POW's are entitled to certain rights, which they aren't given.

Yes they are POW's, just because they are denied thier rights doesn't mean they aren't POW's. A prisoner is still a prisoner if he doesn't get a fair trial.

Wow! You get the "most obvious statement" award that most effortlessly still misses the point.

At 2/9/04 04:51 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/9/04 04:03 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/8/04 02:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: Second, they are POWs, not "foreigners".

No, they arne't POW's. POW's are entitled to certain rights, which they aren't given.

Yes they are POW's, just because they are denied thier rights doesn't mean they aren't POW's. A prisoner is still a prisoner if he doesn't get a fair trial.

actually they aren't POWs. to qualify as a "prisoner of war" under the terms of the geneva convention they have to be wearing something like 70% visible battle dress to distinguish them from civilians. because they deliberately disguised themselves as civilians their current status is "battlefield detainees", that's why we can fuck them in the ass all we like.

At 2/11/04 12:34 PM, H-Dawg wrote:
Wow! You get the "most obvious statement" award that most effortlessly still misses the point.

Wow! You're a moron!

If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't post.

At 2/11/04 06:57 PM, Jimsween wrote: Wow! You're a moron!

If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't post.

First you flame him then you tell him to only make constructive posts?

?

And the kangaroo person is right

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Many of the individuals emprisonned in Guantanamo were civilians with no affiliation to any militant groups who were carrying a weapon. Were they actually terrorists dressed in civilian clothing waiting for the right time to strike? There's no proof, yet they're still being held prisonner.

At 2/11/04 07:11 PM, punk_hippy wrote: First you flame him then you tell him to only make constructive posts?

?

How thick headed are you?

Many of the individuals emprisonned in Guantanamo were civilians with no affiliation to any militant groups who were carrying a weapon.

Proof?

proof
In February of this year, President Bush determined the position of the United States concerning at least some of these questions.
In essence, as announced by the White HousePress Secretary on February 7, 2002, he decided that:
(1) The 1949 Geneva Convention concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, to which both Afghanistan and the United States are Parties, applies to the armed conflict in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the United States;
(2) That same Convention does not apply to the armed conflict in Afghanistan and elsewhere between al Qaeda and the United States;
(3) Neither captured Taliban personnel nor captured alQaeda personnel are entitled to be POWs under that Convention; and
(4) Nevertheless, all captured Taliban and al Qaeda personnel are to be treated humanely, consistent with the general principles of the Convention, and delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross may visit privately each detainee.

Civilians classify as armed combatants if they are armed and defend to carry weapons around or even back up the taliban.

At 2/7/04 09:08 PM, red_skunk wrote: concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

I stand corrected, and take a big slice of humble pie (something I hate to do!)

HOWEVER,

I'm sorry that I do not think that what is going on in Getmo is that harsh. Back in the day these guys would REALLY be tortured. Hell they would do worse to an American they captured. In fact I believe they have a leave no prisoner alive policy.

At 2/12/04 04:01 AM, TheMason wrote: HOWEVER,

I'm sorry that I do not think that what is going on in Getmo is that harsh. Back in the day these guys would REALLY be tortured. Hell they would do worse to an American they captured. In fact I believe they have a leave no prisoner alive policy.

This is a good point. However, if we are going to impose our own morality on a bunch of prisoners who really don't have a choice in the matter, then lets REALLY assert our own moral standards, and not detain people without any proof. Not that I'm by any stretch a christian, but "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems to me like a pretty good ethical compass in this context. Of course this doesn't appy in all cases given that some people want to take any possible advantage of this, but many of these people haven't even hinted that they were going to do anything malicious to the U.S.. I think we call this probable cause - but again, probably not within the slippery jargon of military "justice." My point is that here is a fine line between A) protecting yourself and B) preventing any possible attack on your person by "preventatively" taking away the rights and freedoms of others. That's just paranoid, and frankly immoral, and its no wonder people want to bomb the States if that is the way they "protect" themselves! This is the basic problematic of the whole Iraq war - no proof, but they were deemed guilty before proven anything. Nasty government, yes, but if you look at the cultural makeup of the area, that country has many warlords and warring factions who were actually kept in check because of the violent, iron-handed rule of Sadaam. We can't really understand that cultural context from back here in North America. Its a kind of cultural lense problem that makes our vision of those circumstances necessarily obscured according to our own moral, cultural, historical baggage.