US rejects calls to shut Guantanamo (AFP)

[Sphinx]

I used the word "we" a lot in those paragraphs. I used that because most Americans, including me, feel a real connection to the ideals and beliefs of our Constitution and we can associate with the loss of those killed in attacks or in battle. We want to defend our beliefs and the sane world's beliefs, just ask any of the United Nations.

Thanks for thinking about us and defending the "sane world's beliefs". As you advised I went out of my way to ask the UN and got a reply. To be honest I didn't need to go far to get a one, I just followed the link to the report that this very thread is discussing.

Here's their reply:

They said the US authorities should "expeditiously bring all Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial" under international law, "or release them without further delay".

Annan said "There's a lot in the report and I cannot say I necessarily agree with everything (in it).

"But the basic point that one cannot detain individuals in perpetuity and that charges have to be brought against them and (they must) be given a chance to explain themselves and (be) prosecuted, charged or released."

Please allow me to highlight this part again:

"But the basic point that one cannot detain individuals in perpetuity and that charges have to be brought against them and (they must) be given a chance to explain themselves and (be) prosecuted, charged or released."

Is this not one of those "ideals and beliefs" that you have a "real connection" with?


Is it not true that when anyone is suspected of anything they are basically accused without valid proof? Therefore, is it not also true that in order to prove anyone's guilt it is essential to send them to trial to determine the outcome? Remember, these aren't terrorists, they are suspected terrorists. Send them to trial and then you can more or less do what you want with them, but until that day comes I will continue to be disgusted with this issue that the US has taken up. "ideals and beliefs" my arse!


[sarcasm]
I suspected that my neighbour may have terrorist connections. I have no proof of course, but let's lock him up for some years and question him just in case.
I mean, there is no real need to send him to trial because the definition of the word 'suspect' equals guilty anyway. Right? [/sarcasm]

 

[///M-Spec]

And why is it that america can have nukes yet they tell every other country that theyre not allowed them?

Because "every other" country in this case are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty pretty much states that France, China, Great Britain, Soviet Union and the United States --the only countries with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty (1968) may keep them so long as they don't transfer technology to other states.

The other signatories basically agree not to develop them. Yes, this includes Iran and North Korea. So the only thing the EU and US want is for these countries to live up to their obligations under the treaty. Of course, North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003.

And the reason why the US takes a hardline approach with these two countries is 1) we are techically still at war with one and 2) both countries have publicly stated the desire to see at least one country destroyed.

India, Pakistan and Israel are NOT signatories of the treaty. But they haven't threatened to use them on anyone yet. Hence, you don't see too much effort to disarm them. In fact, I don't recall ANY signifigant effort in recent memory.

As for the original topic, I think the issue is a lot more complex than at at first glance, though I am currently inclined to side with the UN. The Bush administration is on a very slippery slope with their "illegal combatants" argument. The problem is how far can you take it?


M

 

[Keef]

I was basicly countering Poverties accusitions that the war against terrorism is unjust. I strongly feel, as does all of the UN, they used to, anyway, that the war is very justified and very important.
I do believe that "suspects" should be tried before they are locked up for good. Even in this country, though, criminals are kept in jail, possibly for years, before they get a chance to a trial. I'm talking of the domestic criminals we have like murderers and such.
But then you have to think that these "terrorist" guys are more than suspects. They are right in between "suspect" and "convict." They are under the military's control, aren't they? The military has its ways, though I don't know what they are.
My comment was basically justifying and explaining the reasons for the war and countering Poverty.

 

[Poverty]

I shall have my counter.

You guys should watch some boondocks. Very entertaining.

 

[Keef]

I have seen it on Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network. It's funny as hell.

 

[Sphinx]

I was basicly countering Poverties accusitions that the war against terrorism is unjust. I strongly feel, as does all of the UN, they used to, anyway, that the war is very justified and very important.

I suspect the UN feels the same, but of course I have no real evidence to hand to back this up. Perhaps we should lock them up

Joking aside, the important thing is agreeing how the 'War on Terror' is to be played. I for one don’t think that breaking International law is the way to do things, especially if we ourselves use that very card against other nations to further our cause in the “War on Terror”. It’s hypocritical, unjust and should be stopped.


I am aware to whom your comments were aimed at. However, this discussion is based on a subject that was conceived for the purpose of aiding the “War on Terror”, and therefore part of it.

I do believe that "suspects" should be tried before they are locked up for good. Even in this country, though, criminals are kept in jail, possibly for years, before they get a chance to a trial. I'm talking of the domestic criminals we have like murderers and such.

Yes, I believe we call it ‘remand’.
I wonder how they get on remand I ask myself. A Court perhaps, whereby particulars of the alleged offence are presented, and further into the process the suspect has the opportunity to place a plea. If the plea is not guilty then the suspect is placed on remand awaiting the trial date. The example you gave above suggests to me that you already think that these “domestic criminals” are already tried and sentenced because you are already calling them criminals. The fact is that they are suspects awaiting trial on remand and have yet to be convicted of any crime. Do these ‘detainees’ share the same process in the same open way?

I’m glad you think that suspects should be tried before they are locked up, and I’m glad that they get a trial for those (no matter how small in number) who are then proved innocent of any crime being committed by them.

But then you have to think that these "terrorist" guys are more than suspects. They are right in between "suspect" and "convict." They are under the military's control, aren't they? The military has its ways, though I don't know what they are.

Who decides that “these “terrorist” guys are more than suspects.”?

What does “right in between “suspect” and “convict” mean exactly?

The Military is in control of the camp, but who controls the Military?