Annan says US should close Guantanamo ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_...a/un_guantanamo

Well I have only one thing to say ..... Eff U Kofi! you worthless 20-year UN career bureaucrat. You have done nothing but promote crony-ism, conflict of interest and corruption. You have continued to keep the UN neutered by refusing to back up words with actions. You have continued to be nothing more than a hypocrite by overseeing an oganization that recommends strong actions, then fails to act, then openly criticizes those who chose to act in support or the original recommendations.

Annan has no business telling the US how to act in their actions in doing what the UN was prevented from doing under Annan's direction. He should shut up and get his own organization in order.

One of the few good things he's suggested!

Anyway, wouldn't this topic sit better in the bearpit, where members would actually be interested in the subject? And, I might add, where you could rant and rave all day to the cheers of fellow US patriots.

One of the few good things he's suggested!

Anyway, wouldn't this topic sit better in the bearpit, where members would actually be interested in the subject? And, I might add, where you could rant and rave all day to the cheers of fellow US patriots.

Patriot: Stands up for their country.

Flunkie: Agrees with anything the leadership says or does.

cv

One of the few good things he's suggested!

Another case of foot in mouth disease!

For starters, the current population is now only about 75% of its peak size in 2002. All the potential bad guys who could have been reasonably let go, have been let go or turned over to their home countries. There are at least 200 who are never getting out because the Pentagon believes they are too serious of a threat.

The population consists of more than 35 different nationalities with the largest percentages being Saudi, Yemeni, Pakistani and Morrocan. These are countries with not exactly the best record of human rights, OR of being able to keep enemies of the west behind bars. Also keep in mind that most of these people were captured in Afghanistan in battle against western coalition forces, or while attending terrorist training camps.

Boom .... abra-ca-da-bra ... you're now in hypothetically in charge of Guantanamo prison.

What do you do?

(Keeping in mind that you're going to be held personally responsible by the US government and citizens, if any one or more of these bad guys goes on the warpath again and kills more innocent western civilians.)

Would I be held responsible also for every innocent guy kept incarcerated against his will, without legal representation and without trial?

Well, I guess this sort of consideration regarding human rights, freedom and democracy doesn't feature on your list of priorities?

Would I be held responsible also for every innocent guy kept incarcerated against his will, without legal representation and without trial?

Pretty crappy attempt at trying to dodge the question.

You're in charge. What do you do?

Give state prosecutors 2 days to file charges against each one in there, at the same time allow them to seek legal representation, after that, release all who haven't had charges brought against them, encourage them to seek compensation and take the present US administration to court for human rights abuses.

Now I've answered your question, care to respond to mine?

Simple - military tribunal - execute those found guilty and if any are not guilty send them packing back home. Good example Nurenberg War Trials.

Simple - military tribunal - execute those found guilty and if any are not guilty send them packing back home. Good example Nurenberg War Trials.

Now that's a good common sence answer, that didn't take rocket science. Why can't "they" think of this?

Maybe lack of evidence?

And what exactly would the charges be?

Executed for having been captured in a battle against coalition forces, or attending a training camp, receiving an e-mail from a known terrorist?

Maybe lack of evidence?

And what exactly would the charges be?

Executed for having been captured in a battle against coalition forces, or attending a training camp, receiving an e-mail from a known terrorist?

How about a little common-sense for a while there zzap?

Jailed for the 'duration' as they are enemy combatants w/out Geneva Convention rights - how's that for starters hmmmm

Maybe lack of evidence?

And what exactly would the charges be?

Executed for having been captured in a battle against coalition forces, or attending a training camp, receiving an e-mail from a known terrorist?

How about a little common-sense for a while there zzap?

Jailed for the 'duration' as they are enemy combatants w/out Geneva Convention rights - how's that for starters hmmmm

Exactly. They are PoW's. They have no rights. Period. End of story.

And let me say this ... as PoWs, they are being treated better than they should be: prayer sessions on demand, three hots and a cot, TV, DVDs, air conditioning, fresh water .... in short they are being treated better there than they were in their own countries.

If they really want justice by the way their third world home countries do business, then it is either swear loyalty to the people who kicked their ass or be put to the sword.

It's namby-pamby pandering by the likes of Annan who have put the world in the situation that it is in today.

Jailed for the 'duration' as they are enemy combatants w/out Geneva Convention rights - how's that for starters hmmmm

Exactly. They are PoW's. They have no rights. Period. End of story.

Hello ? PoW's don't have rights ? You might want to check the Geneva Convention again.

The US doesn't consider the detainees to be "enemy combatants" or PoW's. That is why they they are being held in G'tmo and are denied due process of the law. Some of those guys have been held for 4 years without even being charged ! Some have had lawyers hired by their families, but those lawyers have been denied access to their clients.

"Jailed for the 'duration' as they are enemy combatants w/out Geneva Convention rights" ?

What is that duration ? As long as there is any kind of terrorist threat anywhere in the world, you can justify holding those people in jail without trail ?

They didn't do that after WWII (even Hess was tried and convicted, then jailed for life). In fact, justice came pretty swiftly for most of the senior Nazis (ending in a "short drop and a sudden stop at the end of a rope).

Boon Mee and Spee.

A question. Is G'tmo considered US territory ? Similar to US embassy's around the world ? For example, our camp in Afghanistan was considered Canadian territory while we were there. We had to follow Canadian laws and regulations, even Environmental standards. This applied to the other ex-pats (Brits, Aussies, Nepalese, Indians, ect) as well. If a Nepalese guy had of run-over an Indian worker, he would have been subject to Canadian law, and could have theoretically ended up in Canadian jail (at least until the politicians got involved).

If the G'tmo base is considered US territory, then US law should apply there just as it does in the continental USA, correct ? (I'm asking because I'm not sure about the status of G'tmo).

Would you consider it fair to hold a guy in jail in the US for 4+ years without being charged, without legal representation or without a trail ?

Congress approved a bill after 9/11 authorizing the "Use of Force" to combat terrorism. It was not a formal declaration of war though. Is there a time-limit on that legislation ?

Is it therefore legal for the US to invade foreign countries thought to be sponsors of terrorism (i.e. Afghanistan), overthrow their governments, arrest anyone suspected of terrorist activities and hold them indefinitely without trail ? How long can they be held ?

(need more coffee !)

You might want to check the Geneva Convention again.

Probably you should read it first:

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

The convention specifies how a trial should be run, if the PoWs are brought to trial.

It does not state that they have the right to a speedy trial, as would any US citizen as granted by the Bill of Rights.

As for those who are being detained indefinitely, I suggest a read of section II, which discusses repatriation at the close of hostilities. Last time I checked, the US is still at war, so the likelihood of repatriation is nil.

Would you consider it fair to hold a guy in jail in the US for 4+ years without being charged, without legal representation or without a trail ?

Of course not. Case in point is ol' Johnny Bin Walker, who had his day in court, was convicted and sentenced toot sweet, all within a few months of his capture. Difference is, he is a US citizens. These other bad guys aren't. Huge <deleted>' difference.

You wanna ask Johnny Bin Walker who has the softer deal? Himself or his brothers in arms in Gitmo? Better yet, maybe ask his butthole.

Well what's the story here.They either have no rights or they have rights under the Geneva Convention?

Congress approved a bill after 9/11 authorizing the "Use of Force" to combat terrorism. It was not a formal declaration of war though.

Try telling that song and dance to all the American and Viet Cong PoWs from the 60's and 70's. War is war. It isn' defined by a bunch of sleazy politicians and shyster lawyers.

Is it therefore legal for the US to invade foreign countries thought to be sponsors of terrorism (i.e. Afghanistan), overthrow their governments, arrest anyone suspected of terrorist activities and hold them indefinitely without trail ?

Of course it's legal. Afghanistan openly sponsored the group who invaded American and killed American citizens. It's no different than if the government itself had done it.

And you gotta get off this notion that PoWs are somehow entitled to a speedy trial. It is absolute balderdash, a mirage, a myth, an urban legend drummed up by the commie-ACLU .... get it?

Well what's the story here.They either have no rights or they have rights under the Geneva Convention?

It doesn't grant rights to PoWs. It tells the people who captured the PoWs how they must act with the PoWs and to what things they have to provide for PoWs.

Speaking of which, did anyone bother to ask the Taliban or Al-Zarqawi if they are abiding by the Geneva Convention. last time I checked, beheadings aren't in there.

Boon Mee and Spee.

A question. Is G'tmo considered US territory ?

It is a US Military base.

No rights for anybody, friend or foe!

Well what's the story here.They either have no rights or they have rights under the Geneva Convention?

The term "enemy combatant" was invented deliberatedly to place these prisoners outside of criminal law, and the Geneva Convention. Which is why there's such a controversy about the practice wordwide and within the US.

These guys are no PoWs, do your homework, Spee.

simple solution, put them on american soil

Koffi was the best UN secretary general we had for a long time. Funny how Bush supporters see him as a threat, he is harmless

Koffi was the best UN secretary general we had for a long time. Funny how Bush supporters see him as a threat, he is harmless

Just like his also corrupt son?

War is war. It isn' defined by a bunch of sleazy politicians and shyster lawyers.

or bruce willis , sylvester stallone and chuck norris in a hollywood blockbuster....

who does fox news endorse as the next head of the UN - dick cheney , fine ,upstanding ,incorruptible hero he is.

Imagine if he ever went to starbucks.."Coffee,kofi?"

...

Speaking of which, did anyone bother to ask the Taliban or Al-Zarqawi if they are abiding by the Geneva Convention. last time I checked, beheadings aren't in there.

Last time I checked, "Al-Zarqawi" wasn't recognised as a nation, nor has he signed the Geneva convention. To my knowledge, he doesn't spout about freedom and democracy on every occasion, either.

...

Speaking of which, did anyone bother to ask the Taliban or Al-Zarqawi if they are abiding by the Geneva Convention. last time I checked, beheadings aren't in there.

Last time I checked, "Al-Zarqawi" wasn't recognised as a nation, nor has he signed the Geneva convention. To my knowledge, he doesn't spout about freedom and democracy on every occasion, either.

No...he just blows up innocents at wedding parties when not chopping heads...

No...he just blows up innocents at wedding parties when not chopping heads...

True. He and his followers are criminals. They are not military, militia, or a recognized, organized resistance movement. Same of those other groups that keep kidnapping people. Some are trying to make a name for themselves (to gain more followers and therefore more power), others are trying to get rich.

When caught, these miscreants should be treated the same as any other criminals. Lock up the kidnappers, shoot the murderers (after a proper, fair trial of course, just like they are doing with SoDamn Insane).

These guys are no PoWs, do your homework, Spee.

PoW = Prisoner of War

These chumps were captured in battle while waging war against the coalition forces.

What other definition would you want to give to them????

Get a clue or quit trolling.

These guys are no PoWs, do your homework, Spee.

PoW = Prisoner of War

These chumps were captured in battle while waging war against the coalition forces.

What other definition would you want to give to them????

Get a clue or quit trolling.

It's the US government that insists they aren't prisoners of war.

cv

It's the US government that insists they aren't prisoners of war.

Enemy combatants is just another phrase for the same term to keep these dazed and confused ACLU in their place.

Consider this ....

After almost 4 years, do you think if anyone with a legal leg to stand on would have gotten through the door by now?

Fact is the US has already release anyone whom they felt should be released. Most of the rest are hard core bad guys.

The number one job of the US government is protection and defense of the American people. If they let these people go, there is 100% certainty they would go back to what they were doing before, which is creating a danger to America.

The president and the military leaders are not about to violate their oaths of office!

The job of enemy combatants is to protect their people and fight the American enemy, they have a right to defend themselves from the American invaders.

Why do you hate other people freedom, Spee ?