|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Apr 13, 2003 11:10:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2003 17:29:13 GMT -5
I heard that late last night, Marc. Wonderful news to say the least.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Apr 15, 2003 21:01:37 GMT -5
I wonder if this will spur the US to release some of the Afghan "POWs" held in Guantanamo Bay?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 15, 2003 21:38:29 GMT -5
Hello 24C's,
What's the skinny???
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the US to release those prisoners any time soon. Some of them stated that if they had the chance they'd kill any American the could get close to.
Then again, they'll eventually release them. But when? I dunno.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 15, 2003 23:15:09 GMT -5
I wonder if this will spur the US to release some of the Afghan "POWs" held in Guantanamo Bay? Well, first the US would have to recognize them as POWs and grant them such un-American things as "rights" !! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 16, 2003 0:02:40 GMT -5
Well, first the US would have to recognize them as POWs and grant them such un-American things as "rights" !! They do fall into the grey areas of the Geneva Convention PTH. Calling them POW's would be the simple thing to do, but not nesscessairly the right thing under international law. You figure the doves would support a US attempt to uphold internation law, but no. As for the prisoners in GB, I suggest that they do have more rights then you would care to imagine. For one, they're free to practice whatever religion they want, instead of whatever flavour of Islam their home country supports. For seconds, they are fed better, housed better and generally better kept in GB than in their caves in Afghanistan (granted, people have the right to live in caves if they wish, I'm merely saying that their standard of living is what would generally be considered to be higher). And for thirds, setting them free is, if we were to draw an analogy between the world today and the traditional battlefield, tantamount to setting them down at one end of a field, giving them guns and letting them shoot at your soliders (to be captured again, restarting the whole process) |
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Apr 16, 2003 14:24:07 GMT -5
Hello 24C's, What's the skinny??? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the US to release those prisoners any time soon. Some of them stated that if they had the chance they'd kill any American the could get close to. Then again, they'll eventually release them. But when? I dunno. Cheers. Hey Dis, how's it going? Long time no speak. Hope Kingston is treating you well. |
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Apr 16, 2003 14:25:18 GMT -5
Well, first the US would have to recognize them as POWs and grant them such un-American things as "rights" !! Fat chance of that happening, indeed! I thought, and maybe and others could affirm or discredit this, that the whole notion of the US taking them as captives in the first place was under the premise they are prisoners of war...how else can you hold someone hold someone in captivity with no trial or no proof? |
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Apr 16, 2003 14:29:29 GMT -5
As for the prisoners in GB, I suggest that they do have more rights then you would care to imagine. For one, they're free to practice whatever religion they want, instead of whatever flavour of Islam their home country supports. For seconds, they are fed better, housed better and generally better kept in GB than in their caves in Afghanistan (granted, people have the right to live in caves if they wish, I'm merely saying that their standard of living is what would generally be considered to be higher). Interesting we preach how democratic and free everything is here as opposed to the Middle East. Aren't American companies/government now giving Canada/France/Germany/etc. the cold shoulder in business deals (especially the arena of "restructuring" deals in Iraq) because of those countries non conformance during the US occupation of Iraq? It says were free to do as we please and want here in the West, as long as it jives with the US government's position. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 16, 2003 17:49:56 GMT -5
They do fall into the grey areas of the Geneva Convention PTH. Calling them POW's would be the simple thing to do, but not nesscessairly the right thing under international law. It might not be technically legal to call them POW's, but it would be simpler and it's generally agreed in non-governmental organisations that it would be the right thing to do. Doing the "right thing", even when it's not technically legal, usually works out for the best, when there's a consensus as to what's right. First, I'm not a "dove", I'm simply annoyed at seeing the US do as it wishes without even paying lip service to the rest of the world. As to the US upholding international law, when exactly has that last happened ? The US uses international forums to gain credibility, but when they can't be manipulated to do exactly what the US wanted to do in the first place, it's not long before the US bails, and goes it alone, or only with those it managed to buy. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 17, 2003 0:10:27 GMT -5
It might not be technically legal to call them POW's, but it would be simpler and it's generally agreed in non-governmental organisations that it would be the right thing to do. Doing the "right thing", even when it's not technically legal, usually works out for the best, when there's a consensus as to what's right. There are the other issues I stated (i.e. releasing them is equal to putting them back on the battlefield and arming them). Are they POW's? Yeah, I have to say that if we looked hard enough, we could make them POW's. Would it be the smart thing to do? Not reall. First, I'm not a "dove", I'm simply annoyed at seeing the US do as it wishes without even paying lip service to the rest of the world. "Dove" = anyone to the left of me (-: As to the US upholding international law, when exactly has that last happened ? The US uses international forums to gain credibility, but when they can't be manipulated to do exactly what the US wanted to do in the first place, it's not long before the US bails, and goes it alone, or only with those it managed to buy. That's debatable, but I'm tired of debating the merits. They deposed Saddam Hussien and removed a threat to his own people, his internation neighbours and the world at large. It's no different than the actions over Kosovo. Is it legal? Debatable. Is it the "right thing"? Yes |
|
