Stu2630
06-23-2009, 07:46 AM
Skinview
Yes, they are. They are almost all POWs captured in the war in Afghanistan. Its an insurgency, so no one wears a uniform
If they were POWs, they would be entitled to the rights under the Geneva Convention. They have not been given those rights - or any rights. Your previous president invented a classification of his own for them, i.e. "enemy combatants". If US citizens, military or otherwise, had been held under such conditions, you would have been the first to complain.
The US Army.
Neither the US Army, nor any other military force outside of a military junta, has any recognised judicial authority. These people have been basically kidnapped, forcibly taken to a foreign land, and detained for years with no explanation or legal representation. You are defending the indefensible.
These people have been snatched and subjected to long-term incarceration without knowing why
We have not kept it a secret that we believe that they are enemy combatants.
They are "enemy combatants" according to the US Army. If you were arrested by the police for a crime, you would be entitled to know the evidence against you, you have a lawyer and to have your case heard in a court of law. It would not be for the police to decide to lock you up in a foreign land with no contact with the outside world indefinitely. The people are being denied the rights enjoyed even by common criminals. The US Army, and the US government, is flouting the very principles of basic justice and human rights which you so freely espouse.
No country gives POWs trials.
President Bush himself has insisted they are not POWs because, if they were, they would have certain rights. That's why he coined the phrase 'enemy combatants'.
8,000 Americans died in deplorable conditions on British prison barges in New York harbor during the Revolution. An ancestor of mine died on a British prison barge.
Probably so. I am not holding Britain up as the epitome of liberty, equality and human rights - there is no shortage of examples in which the country of my birth has behaved deplorably both to foreigners and also to its own nationals. My point was that, in modern times, both the US Constitution and the various European nations and institutions are relatively free, and it is futile and unproductive for anyone on either side of the Atlantic to say that their system is vastly superior to the other. Each has its advantages, and each has skeletons in the cupboard.
You had your Cromwell. Our right to bear arms is derived from British liberties and British history and resistance to dysfunctional British government.
Cromwell had a bit of a chequered history. He tamed a tyrannical monarchy to some extent, but attepted to replace it with a fierce, and yet bleak, theocracy based on a particular brand of protestant fundamentalism. Your "right to bear arms" stems from your history - but it's not a history we share, so we see things very differently. That doesn't mean either side is right or wrong.
"We" is not everybody. The UK violates the rights of those who want arms.
You will find that British people not only do not want a right to bear arms, but actually value the right to live in a society free from the wide availability of firearms. Like most of my neighbours, I detest guns. The vast majority of our police don't have guns, and even most of our criminal classes tend to avoid them. Not having the right to bear arms suits us - but that doesn't mean I am saying the same should apply in your country.
Different strokes, as you say. :)
Stu
Yes, they are. They are almost all POWs captured in the war in Afghanistan. Its an insurgency, so no one wears a uniform
If they were POWs, they would be entitled to the rights under the Geneva Convention. They have not been given those rights - or any rights. Your previous president invented a classification of his own for them, i.e. "enemy combatants". If US citizens, military or otherwise, had been held under such conditions, you would have been the first to complain.
The US Army.
Neither the US Army, nor any other military force outside of a military junta, has any recognised judicial authority. These people have been basically kidnapped, forcibly taken to a foreign land, and detained for years with no explanation or legal representation. You are defending the indefensible.
These people have been snatched and subjected to long-term incarceration without knowing why
We have not kept it a secret that we believe that they are enemy combatants.
They are "enemy combatants" according to the US Army. If you were arrested by the police for a crime, you would be entitled to know the evidence against you, you have a lawyer and to have your case heard in a court of law. It would not be for the police to decide to lock you up in a foreign land with no contact with the outside world indefinitely. The people are being denied the rights enjoyed even by common criminals. The US Army, and the US government, is flouting the very principles of basic justice and human rights which you so freely espouse.
No country gives POWs trials.
President Bush himself has insisted they are not POWs because, if they were, they would have certain rights. That's why he coined the phrase 'enemy combatants'.
8,000 Americans died in deplorable conditions on British prison barges in New York harbor during the Revolution. An ancestor of mine died on a British prison barge.
Probably so. I am not holding Britain up as the epitome of liberty, equality and human rights - there is no shortage of examples in which the country of my birth has behaved deplorably both to foreigners and also to its own nationals. My point was that, in modern times, both the US Constitution and the various European nations and institutions are relatively free, and it is futile and unproductive for anyone on either side of the Atlantic to say that their system is vastly superior to the other. Each has its advantages, and each has skeletons in the cupboard.
You had your Cromwell. Our right to bear arms is derived from British liberties and British history and resistance to dysfunctional British government.
Cromwell had a bit of a chequered history. He tamed a tyrannical monarchy to some extent, but attepted to replace it with a fierce, and yet bleak, theocracy based on a particular brand of protestant fundamentalism. Your "right to bear arms" stems from your history - but it's not a history we share, so we see things very differently. That doesn't mean either side is right or wrong.
"We" is not everybody. The UK violates the rights of those who want arms.
You will find that British people not only do not want a right to bear arms, but actually value the right to live in a society free from the wide availability of firearms. Like most of my neighbours, I detest guns. The vast majority of our police don't have guns, and even most of our criminal classes tend to avoid them. Not having the right to bear arms suits us - but that doesn't mean I am saying the same should apply in your country.
Different strokes, as you say. :)
Stu