Well, there was at least one.
And others were held elsewhere. Nice try though. And they forced him to renounce his citizenship before they'd release him.
They didn't know he was a US citizen. I'm not sure what you think that proves. You string a bunch of nice conspiracy theories together, but none of it has to do with the topic at hand.
Furthermore, even if the rest of the prisoners of Guantanamo aren't US citizens, we are still in violation of the Geneva convention, which we agreed to, signed and expect every other nation to follow when dealing with Americans.
No we're not. Can you show me what part of the Geneva Convention we violated? It's easy to insist that this is true, but you are making an argument from ignorance and counting on the fact that most people are equally ignorant of what the Geneva Conventions actually say.
Their intentions were to extract information using
forceinterrogation. The Geneva Convention protects against that.
No. It doesn't. Have you ever in your life actually read the Geneva Conventions?
You know how the Bush Administration got around that? By saying that all the people they are holding aren't prisoners of war.
They aren't. They do not meet the criteria set in the 3rd Geneva Convention
which are required to qualify for POW status. I'll ask again: Have you actually read the Geneva Conventions?
That's clearly bullsh*t (and every other nation on the planet made it clear that they thought so--including our allies). A PoW is technically defined as someone held during or after an armed conflict--an official declaration of war has nothing to do with it. The GC makes clear that it applies to all times of war AND ARMED CONFLICT.
That is not what defines a POW. You haven't read the relevant Convention
There's a very long list of things qualifying one for POW status, the most relevant is the following:
(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.
This is the section under which civilians may choose to join a conflict and still qualify as POWs. Note, that at least 2 of the required conditions have clearly not been met (b and d), and several others likely weren't either.
They were not classified as POWs because they don't meet the criteria to be POWs. This is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It's in exact accordance with it. It's largely only ignorant people who don't know what the conventions actually say who continually insist otherwise.
The fact is that the Bush administration treated international treaties (ones put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the world against the horrors of WWI and II) and its own constitution as rules to be bended or broken, not as something that should be protected for every citizen. And the senate did not agree.
That is not a fact and it's not true, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. We did not violate the Geneva Conventions, and the only constitutional violation at Gitmo was that the US had not passed a law specifically defining the military commissions process underwhich detainees were being held. Congress clarified that law in 2006, making the detainments completely legal and in accordance with the US constitution (per the Supreme Court even!).
You are just plain wrong.
All we have to do is declare someone a POW and all their rights disappear! We can hold them without trial, and without redress, and for as long as we want. OMG! The humanity...
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said terrorist for a reason.
No. You miss the point. People who are declared to be POWs can be held indefinitely and without trial. Yet you are arguing that terrorists should be given *better* treatment in this regard and be granted trials or be let free. Do you see how that makes no sense?
We refuse to acknowledge that they are PoWs, even though they clearly are, and so feel like we are justified in treating them like they have no rights.
But if they were POWs they would not be able to demand speedy trials either. I was specifically responding to your statement that denying these people trials was a violation of their rights. It very clearly isn't. You just have such a poor understanding of these things that it appears that way to you. Ignorance doesn't make you right.
The reason we aren't considering them PoWs is because, by law, we would then have to give them trials.
No. We wouldn't. That was the whole point of what I said before. POWs do not get trials. You really do have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
That's right. We don't even know if some of the prisoners actually did anything wrong. Some of them are only SUSPECTED of it...
It's not about committing a crime though. It's about committing an act of war. We have exactly as much evidence that these guys were engaged in illegal military actions against our country as we have for "legal" military action in the case of POWs. But you don't understand what I'm talking about, do you? Edited, Dec 23rd 2010 12:58pm by gbaji