Guantanamo Bay Hunger Strike

[fela fan]

yes you don't really understand the concept of 'justice' do you? yet another neocon hypocrite

he does if he was referring to bush and blair and howard and thaksin and the one in burma, and in zimbabwe, and in n korea, and so on...

 

[nino_savatte]

No they're not. Nationalist!

They are and they may appear to be as one because of their overlap. But the nation is used by the state to legitimate a range of projects and policies.

 

[nino_savatte]

Great news, all the terrosits can starve themselves to death.

Problem solved.

It sounds like you could do with a spell there. You might shed some of those pounds you're carrying around.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Great news, all the terrosits can starve themselves to death.

Problem solved.

Spoken like the fake plastic Christian turd you are.

 

[Streathamite]

They are and they may appear to be as one because of their overlap. But the nation is used by the state to legitimate a range of projects and policies.

betcha ten spliffs and a top bong he wasn't

 

[Streathamite]

But like i've just said in reply to nino red, i agree man!

In my new class this term i have two americans (of a reasonable age) who yet again confirm a real respect i have for many of them. I meet far more decent americans than arrogant ones. Furthermore, i love talking stuff with them. I gain a bit of trust before attacking their nation by sounding them out by attacking my own nation (er, sorry, state, government). I find that a common understanding is achieved in quicker time (if they call me a cunt, then i find out ultra fast and disappear out of their lives just as quick).

I have little experience of americans in america (but being polite and welcoming is one of those experiences), but quite a lot of those that travel. Almost always positive.

Which then confuses the fuck out of me when we have evil torturers like bush and rumsfeld in power over there setting up guantanamos and the like.

My only answer is that insanity will always prevail over sanity.

top post.
<applause>

 

[grogwilton]

do you live in the states? if not the fact that youve met them is one of the reasons they seem so sane.

firstly their is the issue of the state being different to the people, like in Britain.

but also the yanks weve met, (ive never been to the states) are the ones who have experienced a bit of the world and are more open minded generally because of it, and have heard the other view of a lot of issues.

the problem is most of the population of the states, have never been outside of the states, and so generally just dont get the opposing views from europe or south america or whatever. the right wing us media doesnt help. this doesnt mean theyre bad people just that theyve lived all their lives in places where the community believes the state is generally right and ok, and dont even know about a lot of the atrocities committed in its name.

thats why theres a seeming lack of correlation between us governments and yanks you meet in europe. i know an american english teacher who moved here purely because she liked it here more and thought it was more liberal

 

[Poi E]

the problem is most of the population of the states, have never been outside of the states, and so generally just dont get the opposing views from europe or south america or whatever. l

Yes, and given how low voter turn out is in congressional and Presidential elections, we can't assume that the populace has much influence on government at all. In fact, with the dreadful mass media there and patronising attitude towards the populace, I think our presumption should be that the government of America really does not reflect the nature of the people there, who mostly genuinely want to help in some fashion, however misguided.

 

[nino_savatte]

betcha ten spliffs and a top bong he wasn't

 

[pbman]

yes you don't really understand the concept of 'justice' do you? yet another neocon hypocrite

They are prisoners of war.

Not criminals.

You don't really understand the difference do you?

 

[Poi E]

They are prisoners of war.

So treat them in accordance with the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory.

 

[pbman]

So treat them in accordance with the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory.

PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them...........


Article 4

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:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

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


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

What part of that is so tough for you to understand?

 

[grogwilton]

so what are you saying? theyre not prisoners of war cos they dont fill that criteria? so theyre criminals? i think your arguments imploding in on itself, bit like your leaders occupation of iraq.

 

[pbman]

so what are you saying? theyre not prisoners of war cos they dont fill that criteria? so theyre criminals? i think your arguments imploding in on itself, bit like your leaders occupation of iraq.

You didn't read it did you?

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them...........

What does "contracting parties" mean in your world?

 

[Poi E]

pb, you are so simple. They are PoWs, you are not holding them in accordance with treatment that is guaranteed under the GC, oh what's the point, your government owns you.

 

[Poi E]

Afghanistan was a signatory. I won't go into notions of the succession of states because you won't understand.

 

[pbman]

pb, you are so simple. They are PoWs, you are not holding them in accordance with treatment that is guaranteed under the GC, oh what's the point, your government owns you.

No its you who are the simple one, the GC only apples to countires that sign it.

We have, they haven't so it doesn't apply.

But they are still prisoners of war.

And they are still babied with good food and healthcare and such.

Hell i wish they treated our people that they take 1/100 as well.

But they just chop off their heads.

Tell me what section of the GC aproves of that btw.

 

[TAE]

www.whitehouse.gov

Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.

 

[pbman]

www.whitehouse.gov

What are you saying bush is right all the time, and i have to agree with him?

I think not.

He also blathered on once about global warming.

I don't buy that either.

 

[_pH_]

They are prisoners of war.

Not criminals.

You don't really understand the difference do you?

Hang on, didn't the US call them 'enemy combatants' or something, not PoWs, to avoid having to comply with the Geneva Convention?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hang on, didn't the US call them 'enemy combatants' or something, not PoWs, to avoid having to comply with the Geneva Convention?

Basically yes. Here's a useful summary of this issue and all the other ones relating to White House approved torture policies, from the blog of the (very pissed off) Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale (and some of his pals) This evasion is due to be tested before the Supreme Court (see e.g. this ), which may have a lot to do with why Bush is trying to get his personal lawyer elected to that court.

 

[TAE]

What are you saying bush is right all the time, and i have to agree with him?

I am saying the US government stated that Afghanistan had signed the GC, that's all.

---

What few people ever talk about is what rights those who are not covered by that part of the GC have.

I don't think it is correct (or even in the west's interest) to say that countries are allowed to go around kidnapping random people and detaining them indefinatly simply by accusing them of 'working for the enemy' and calling them 'illegal comabatants'.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> What few people ever talk about is what rights those who are not covered by that part of the GC have.

I don't think it is correct (or even in the west's interest) to say that countries are allowed to go around kidnapping random people and detaining them indefinatly simply by accusing them of 'working for the enemy' and calling them 'illegal comabatants'.

It's still totally illegal under the GC to do that stuff. See the second link in my post above

The Geneva Conventions establish two levels of wartime protection, depending on the nature of the war. If the war is an "old paradigm" conflict between states, Geneva provides an elaborate system of protections - for prisoners of war in the Third Convention, and for civilians in the Fourth Convention. (The remaining two conventions concern wounded and sick combatants on land and sea.) But what about conflicts that don't pit state against state? Here, in "common Article Three" (common, that is, to all four Conventions), the Geneva framers insisted on at least minimum human rights for anyone who is detained. These include rights not to be sentenced or punished without minimum due process - the Geneva right on which Hamdan based his argument against the military commissions.

But common Article Three also provides for other basic human rights, including rights against violence, cruel treatment, torture, and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." When the D.C. Circuit held that Article Three does not apply to the War on Terror, it stripped away all these basic protections from detainees. In place of the split-level protections of Geneva - full protections in state-against-state wars, and at least minimum human rights the rest of the time - Hamdan creates a third tier of "protections," namely no protections at all, in the War on Terror. Where Geneva creates a main floor and a basement, Hamdan digs beneath the basement and adds a dungeon.

It's even illegal under US law source which is why the decision on Hamdan vs Rumsfeld saying otherwise that's about to go before the Supreme Court is so important . (and it's very likely why Bush wants his personal lawyer appointed to that court even if it drives many of his supporters crazy. The movement conservative legal types wanted to see some federalist society heavy, who might well have decided that war crimes law was more important than personal loyalty to the Bush dynasty. Miers thinks he's wonderful and wants to change his diapers, so she won't.)

 

[nino_savatte]

They are prisoners of war.

Not criminals.

You don't really understand the difference do you?

If they are POWs, as you assert, then why aren't they being held in accordance with the terms of the Geneva Convention? It sounds like you want it both ways: they are "unlawful combatants" and POWs.

 

[quamp1]

Well, of course this is not getting any coverage in the USA. It would be embarassing for Gitmo and George Wanker in general.

One thing I found funny about all this is that Guatanemo bay's nickname - gitmo - is old African-American slang for a whorehouse. It makes me wonder why they're calling it that.

 

[Poi E]

One thing I found funny about all this is that Guatanemo bay's nickname - gitmo - is old African-American slang for a whorehouse. It makes me wonder why they're calling it that.

Interesting. "Gitmo" is not a very obvious derivation from Guantanamo Bay, to my mind. "G-Bay" has a more Hollywood ring to it. And what are the USurpers doing on Cuban soil anyway? Doing deals with Commies?

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm still waiting for a reply, peebs.

 

[newharper]

"WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the U.S. government to provide medical records on Guantanamo prisoners who are being force-fed while on a hunger strike and to notify their lawyers about forced feedings.

U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler acted after lawyers representing about a dozen men held at the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, expressed urgent concern over their deteriorating health amid a hunger strike launched in early August."

Not much, but a foothold for the lawyers.

oops forgotlink