Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Thats not really a trial. I think we should look at the SOuth African example and try to acheive reconciliation on a world wide basis to isolate the terrorists.
    How do you plan on reconciling people who believe that it is their right and duty to rule the world or [just for the time being] the islamic world at least and to kill infidels, homosexuals and corrupters, among others, with everyone else?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Why not?
    Im sure you'll correct me but they don't have access to lawyers, or the evidence against them. Also, the 'trials' are held in secret and not held by judges but the military which aren't as concerned about justice as most judges.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    How do you plan on reconciling people who believe that it is their right and duty to rule the world or [just for the time being] the islamic world at least and to kill infidels, homosexuals and corrupters, among others, with everyone else?
    I didnt mean the terrorists whcih is why I said the aim of such a policy is to isolate the terrorists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Im sure you'll correct me but they don't have access to lawyers, or the evidence against them. Also, the 'trials' are held in secret and not held by judges but the military which aren't as concerned about justice as most judges.
    Does the Geneva Convention state what is or isnt an acceptable tribunal hearing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrs. Political)
    no but labour wanted new laws introducing for the working man, compared to the other parties this was extremist, not in a terrorist sense but there views were different weren't they
    Yeah they were different but I think they were progressive views not extremist. Im sure most moderate Tories would say the polices of the Tories in the early 1900s were extremist. Labours were different but not extremist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Does the Geneva Convention state what is or isnt an acceptable tribunal hearing?
    I thought you said the Geneva Convention didn't apply?!

    Im talking about the standards in an American court protected by the Constitution. They have got round this by having the camp and trials away from American mainland but I still think the same rules should apply when it is Americans organizing trials, otherwise they are violating their sacred constitution.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The Geneva Convention acts much like a contract between two signatories who are engaged in conflict with one another. The enemy neither respects the Geneva Convention, much less signed up to it. It exploits US adherence to the Geneva Convention as a weapon. Since the GC is largely the result of Western principles and governance, they would likely oppose it just as they are trying to destroy democracy. Whatsmore, the combatants caught by the US are not protected under the third Geneva Convention as PoWs, neither do they respect any other formally recognised rules of war.
    Im weary of what you are saying, because I have heard that you play devils advocate. To be quite honest, that is a deplorable argument! As a Western, civilized society, I feel it is our duty to show extremists the good of Western ideals. Again, as I have stressed with Mrs. Political, these argument only seek to perpetuate violence. Cannot it not be the Western democracies, that believe in justice and free speech, that take the moral high ground?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Is this the same Newsweek article that was later admitted to be factually inaccurate? Nevertheless, perhaps you could elaborate on "constant beating".
    No, it is based on factual evidence. The two British guantanamo bay detainees released late last year were interviewed, and recounted the gruesome human rights abuses there.

    I cannot elaborate anymore on "constant beating". It is what it is: beating for the sake of beating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HTale)
    No, it is based on factual evidence. The two British guantanamo bay detainees released late last year were interviewed, and recounted the gruesome human rights abuses there.
    Osama probably believes I will rot in whatever his idea of hell is, for my infidel sins. Forgive me if I dont take it as being fact because he says so.


    I cannot elaborate anymore on "constant beating". It is what it is: beating for the sake of beating.
    Was it constant? Was it punching? Was it disciplinary?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HTale)
    Im weary of what you are saying, because I have heard that you play devils advocate. To be quite honest, that is a deplorable argument! As a Western, civilized society, I feel it is our duty to show extremists the good of Western ideals. Again, as I have stressed with Mrs. Political, these argument only seek to perpetuate violence. Cannot it not be the Western democracies, that believe in justice and free speech, that take the moral high ground?
    Very patronising, you maek it sound as they are uncivilized beasts waiting for us westerners to come and help them and teahc them the ways of democracy, when they are cold, calculating fanatics with one goal to kill as many "infidels" as possible, they deserve the reatment they recieve and the fact hey are kept prisoner is better for a fact if they were released all they would do si tyr and kill more infidels prison is the bets place and if they are beatne and interrogated for intelligence id rather 200 extremists were continuously beaten and information extracted which could save one innocent person.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    I thought you said the Geneva Convention didn't apply?!
    No, I said that we were dealing with an enemy for whom the Geneva Convention was more Western infidelism. We should still seek to apply the Geneva Convention whenever possible.

    Im talking about the standards in an American court protected by the Constitution. They have got round this by having the camp and trials away from American mainland but I still think the same rules should apply when it is Americans organizing trials, otherwise they are violating their sacred constitution.
    The constitution actually stretches to all land under US jurisdiction, but I think there is some grey area as to exactly whether this is the case with Guantanamo. The argument is that non-US unlawful combatants have no constitutional rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HTale)
    Im weary of what you are saying, because I have heard that you play devils advocate.
    Hehe, who told you that?

    To be quite honest, that is a deplorable argument! As a Western, civilized society, I feel it is our duty to show extremists the good of Western ideals.
    Again, as I have stressed with Mrs. Political, these argument only seek to perpetuate violence. Cannot it not be the Western democracies, that believe in justice and free speech, that take the moral high ground?
    Yes, take the moral high ground, but recognise that our moral high ground isnt theirs and they arent going to thank you for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody1)
    Very patronising, you maek it sound as they are uncivilized beasts waiting for us westerners to come and help them and teahc them the ways of democracy, when they are cold, calculating fanatics with one goal to kill as many "infidels" as possible, they deserve the reatment they recieve and the fact hey are kept prisoner is better for a fact if they were released all they would do si tyr and kill more infidels prison is the bets place and if they are beatne and interrogated for intelligence id rather 200 extremists were continuously beaten and information extracted which could save one innocent person.
    Again, you are making a grave mistake! You have no idea of the innocence of some of these detainees! The point of this thread is not to argue over whether or not extremists should be beaten. Rather, it is a thread which questions the actions of the US military at camp x-ray. We cannot allow this inhumane treatment until we know for sure which are the terrorists, and which are not.

    The term "innocent until proven guilty" may not be an ethos of the US judicial system, but without doubt I think it is logical - in a moral sense - to enact this principle. As exemplified by the release of three British detainees, many of the prisoners in camp x-ray are innocent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeh there innocent they jsut happened to be captured in Afghanistan or Iraq holding a weapon then accicdentally squeeze the triiger at coalition soldiers damn it was there unlucky day..........

    People dont get put in Guantanamo Bay fro nothing its simple as that. People caught in foreign countrys bearing arms then claim to be aid workers hmmmm yeh......

    If they were aid workers why didnt they join the red cross? or red crescent? soley set out on there own when they couldnt possibyl do nething wrong.

    Some people probaly are innocent in Guantanamo Bay but i'd rather it held a few innocent people than the US let a few extremists go by accident when sifting through for guilty people!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Hehe, who told you that?
    I know you play it...its my favourite game too.

    (Original post by Vienna)
    Yes, take the moral high ground, but recognise that our moral high ground isnt theirs and they arent going to thank you for it.
    Thats not the point. If the 'war on terror' is to be in any way acceptable to the Arab population, we must show the true worth of Western ideals. As an Arab myself, I have listened to the many conspiracy theories, and anti-US sentiment in the cafes and on the streets. As one of the posts has duly elaborated, this war is also about winning hearts and minds. The extremists live and breathe upon this sentiment, and if the West can show otherwise to these claims, the extremists will lose this side of the battle.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    I didnt mean the terrorists whcih is why I said the aim of such a policy is to isolate the terrorists.
    If you think everyone who believes that is a terrorist you think a great many muslims are terrorists. The best we can manage there is mutual toleration, and, even then, only on a basis of power, i fear.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody1)
    Yeh there innocent they jsut happened to be captured in Afghanistan or Iraq holding a weapon then accicdentally squeeze the triiger at coalition soldiers damn it was there unlucky day..........

    People dont get put in Guantanamo Bay fro nothing its simple as that. People caught in foreign countrys bearing arms then claim to be aid workers hmmmm yeh......
    This is perhaps the most naive post I have seen in a long time! Do you honestly think that the detainees in camp x-ray are exclusively from Afghanistan and Iraq?! They come from all over Europe, are sent to a secure prison, and are extradited to the US. In Britain, they are sent to prison without habeous corpus which is recinded under the Terrorism Act. Some of the charges are usually false, and are brought about in much the same as de Menizies was tracked a week ago.

    I urge you, please dont take this personally, to research on this matter before you post, but I thank you for this contribution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HTale)
    This is perhaps the most naive post I have seen in a long time! Do you honestly think that the detainees in camp x-ray are exclusively from Afghanistan and Iraq?! They come from all over Europe, are sent to a secure prison, and are extradited to the US. In Britain, they are sent to prison without habeous corpus which is recinded under the Terrorism Act. Some of the charges are usually false, and are brought about in much the same as de Menizies was tracked a week ago.

    I urge you, please dont take this personally, to research on this matter before you post, but I thank you for this contribution.
    People arnt arrested for no reason, dont believe everythign you read in the press, do you think the government discloses all the information relating to why they were arressted?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HTale)
    Thats not the point. If the 'war on terror' is to be in any way acceptable to the Arab population, we must show the true worth of Western ideals.
    These are two seperate points. Firstly, why would opposing terrorism not be acceptable to the Arab population? Secondly, the Arab populations dont accept Western ideals, so a war in their defence is unjustifiable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HTale)
    Again, you are making a grave mistake! You have no idea of the innocence of some of these detainees! The point of this thread is not to argue over whether or not extremists should be beaten. Rather, it is a thread which questions the actions of the US military at camp x-ray. We cannot allow this inhumane treatment until we know for sure which are the terrorists, and which are not.
    There are several factors here. one is the question of whether people were fighting for the taliban, whether they are dangerous terrorists who need to be imprisoned for a long time, and how they should be treated while people find out which applies. This has nothing to do with human rights. Human rights apply to everyone, regardless of what they have done, just because they are human.
 
 
 
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.