Subject:
|
Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:11:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
508 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Scott A wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > > > It's my understanding that Walker
> > > >
> > > > is alleged to have
> > >
> > > Oops. Fair enough.
> > >
> > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Maybe--has the UK made any effort to extradite those detainees (who have,
> > > I understand, reported that conditions in the detainment center are
> > > perfectly adequate)?
> >
> > It was claimed that they were "happy" - which I thought odd.
>
> The UK detainees are still different from Walker. The current action in
> Afghanistan is a direct reaction to an attack on US soil. This Walker is
> alleged to have treasoned against the US, the UK detainees are just non
> Afghans, just like the various other non-Afghans involved.
I thought that Walker was charged with acting against coalition forces in
Afghanistan – not involvement in the events of 11.09.01?
>
> I'm not sure I'm remembering right, but aren't all the Guantanamo
> detainees non-Afghans.
That was my understanding.
>
> In my mind though, I'm not really sure I support calling Walker a
> traitor. A country is not truly free if you can not chose to leave. Now
> we may argue whether Walker truly indicated his desire to renounce the
> US, and I do see a difference between a non-citizen attacking the US and
> a citizen, but not much. Mostly, what I want to see is the actual
> actions of the various detainees evaluated, and appropriate recourse
> taken. Out of pride and trust in our own system, they should be granted
> many of the protections of our system, so long as that can be done
> safely. But these folk have lost some of their right to claim protection
> under our system because fundamentally they reject the system.
Given that his change of sides was so complete, I must admit it did surprise
me a little too – it is not as if he was a fifth columnist.
>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > The conditions of their incarceration in fact greatly exceed what I "would
> > > normally expect" to be maintained for American prisoners held by foreign
> > > powers, so what "one would normally expect" seems mostly irrelevant to me.
> >
> > That is irrelevant (even if true). But I do wonder how the next US POW's
> > will be treated.
>
> It certainly won't help. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much stock
> to put in the whole idea of the Geneva Convention. How workable is it
> really? In reality, the treatment of POWs depends on the perceptions of
> the entity holding the prisoners. The Germans treated US and UK
> prisoners relatively well because we treated their prisoners well, and
> they probably really feared what would happen if they mistreated the
> prisoners. Russian prisoners were not treated so well. Sure, signing of
> treaties appears to be the reason, but ultimately, the reason is
> expectations.
This is more than just “treaties” though is it not? It is about protecting
the rights of these people. Most other western nations are able to treat
terrorist suspects with the dignity they deserve as human beings – I’m not
sure why the USA should choose a different path , especially when one
remembers that this war is supposedly in defence of “freedom”.
>
> The conflicts I see in today's world are far messier than WWII. For the
> most part, they are attempts by desperate leaders to gain or maintain
> power. Unfortunately, rather than appealing to reason, and motivating
> their citizens to join them in demanding fairness, they have decided
> that the "Western world" is a pack of devils out to demolish their way
> of life, and are selling that to their citizens.
Do you think that view is 100% wrong? I do not. Time-after-time I see
situations where more value is put on "western" lives (or even western
lifestyles) than is a non-western life.
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
