Subject:
|
Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:34:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
365 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> > And totally misses the point, though the first one about standards of
> > justice stares it in the face and still misses it. The point is whether
> > they are being treated better or worse than American citizens accused of
> > similar crimes would be (I have now been convinced by the Red Cross
> > inspection that their situation is acceptable), why the American citizen
> > amongst them is not being held with them and whether he is receiving a
> > better standard of treatment where he is. (I am very dubious indeed about
> > this, and particularly the message it sends)
>
> I invite anyone better informed to comment on this, of course:
>
> It's my understanding that Walker
is alleged to have
> committed crimes different from those
alleged to have been
> committed by the other detainees. Since Walker is a citizen, for
> instance, he is able to commit treason against the US, but the average
> Al-Qaida member is not similarly able. Therefore, Walker can be arrested
> for treason and therefore tried in the US, while non-US citizens cannot be
> so arrested. Further, as a US citizein, Walker's crime is also an offense
> separate from that of the other detainees; the detainees engaged in war
> against the US, while Walker engaged in treason.
Indeed. But there are UK "detainees" in Cuba too. Could these guys not have
committed treason against the UK? Could they not go on trial in the UK with
real charges against them?
>
> > There has still been very little comment from any Americans on this thread,
> > is it because those on Lugnet find the U.S. actions indefensible?
>
> Indefensible? No, but it's easier to rage about a perceived injustice
> than it is to defend wartime incarcerations in legal terminology, since none
> of us here is a specialist in international wartime legalese.
One does not need to be an expert on "international wartime legalese" to
know that the conditions these *alleged* terrorists are being kept in does
not meet the standards one would normally expect. Does anyone even know what
they have been charged with (other that “terrorism”)? This whole situation
in contrived for the benefit of opinion polls (IMHO).
From AI:
==+==
Denying prisoners their internationally recognised rights -- including the
right to a fair trial -- can constitute a war crime under the Geneva
Conventions and other international humanitarian law.
We campaign against the violation of prisoners' human rights the world over,
whoever is responsible for the violations and whoever the prisoners are.
There can be no double standards in human rights -- they are universal and
indivisible, and it is only by upholding those principles that real justice
can be done," Amnesty International concluded.
==+==
Scott A
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
