- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98469
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7507216.stm
If possible can we stay away from the well trodden ground of the general human rights issues that Guantanamo brings up? I am using this particular case as an example, and hopefully not the discussion point itself.
The point I would like to question here is slightly more specific: if the US is able to hold people indefinitely at Guantanamo on the grounds that they are enemy combatants, how are they also able to try a man/boy for murder because he may have killed an American soldier?
Is this not a case of 'having their cake and eating it', so to speak? On these grounds, could a British soldier, for instance, be charged on the same counts for having killed one of Saddam's Republican Guard? or an insurgent?
Originally posted by HumeAIsn't the US finally giving him a trial because of pressure from the US magistrates and public opinion?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7507216.stm
If possible can we stay away from the well trodden ground of the general human rights issues that Guantanamo brings up? I am using this particular case as an example, and hopefully not the discussion point itself.
The point I would like to question here is slightly more specific: if the US is able to ...[text shortened]... arged on the same counts for having killed one of Saddam's Republican Guard? or an insurgent?
I don't know more of this case to comment, but it seems to me that a natural consequence of the restoration of habeas corpus is that some of the current prisoners will face trials as civilians, since they stop being seen as enemy combatants.
The question is if the rule will be to keep holding them for several years and only then trial them or this means a true change in the US military dealing with such individuals.
Originally posted by HumeAwhat do you want? cookiecutter justice?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7507216.stm
If possible can we stay away from the well trodden ground of the general human rights issues that Guantanamo brings up? I am using this particular case as an example, and hopefully not the discussion point itself.
The point I would like to question here is slightly more specific: if the US is able to ...[text shortened]... arged on the same counts for having killed one of Saddam's Republican Guard? or an insurgent?
Originally posted by HumeAjustice is this:
How about we start with justice. We can move onto fun shapes later.
the country iraq is occupied so oficially, the war is over and the US have won. The government instated in bagdad is the "rightful" one so any actions against its laws is punishable as the law dictates. there are no longer enemy combatants and if captured, prisoners of war under the protection of the Geneva convention, just simply rebels. the insurgents (they probably call themselves resistance fighters) are crime elements not enemy soldiers because their country has surrendered. it would be the same if the gangs of new york would start killing and planting bombs.
so the boy under the laws of that country is simply a murderer who killed an american "tourist" who happens to carry a gun and be a soldier.
justice is made by the ruling regime and it is described by its laws.
this debate is simple if you only look at the justice system. laws were broken and the kid must pay the price. the fun part is when we try to debate if that government and its justice system has a right to rule, if the US army is a peacekeeping force or still an invading country. if the war is over or not and judging by that answer if actions against US soldiers and current iraqi government are acts of war or criminal acts.
the french resistance was a criminal organisation in the eyes of the vichy government. only when that government fell they became heroes.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98469
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am not disputing that what the boy is accused of doing is a crime (but then again I haven't been to Iraq, and I don't know how the Coalition troops are seen by the general public), but questioning the fact that he can be both a prisoner of war and criminal. He was 15 when he was supposed to have done the deed, he is 21 now. That's a pretty long wait for a trial for a criminal.
justice is this:
the country iraq is occupied so oficially, the war is over and the US have won. The government instated in bagdad is the "rightful" one so any actions against its laws is punishable as the law dictates. there are no longer enemy combatants and if captured, prisoners of war under the protection of the Geneva convention, just simply rebels. ...[text shortened]... tion in the eyes of the vichy government. only when that government fell they became heroes.
Originally posted by HumeA"could a British soldier, for instance, be charged on the same counts for having killed one of Saddam's Republican Guard? or an insurgent?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7507216.stm
If possible can we stay away from the well trodden ground of the general human rights issues that Guantanamo brings up? I am using this particular case as an example, and hopefully not the discussion point itself.
The point I would like to question here is slightly more specific: if the US is able to ...[text shortened]... arged on the same counts for having killed one of Saddam's Republican Guard? or an insurgent?
Yes, but they must win the war first. Funny how that works!
GRANNY.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98469
Originally posted by smw6869You are right, of course. But wouldn't a change be nice? Shouldn't the UN be paying more attention to the conduct of its member states?
"could a British soldier, for instance, be charged on the same counts for having killed one of Saddam's Republican Guard? or an insurgent?"
Yes, but they must win the war first. Funny how that works!
GRANNY.
Originally posted by HumeAyes, that is wrong.
I am not disputing that what the boy is accused of doing is a crime (but then again I haven't been to Iraq, and I don't know how the Coalition troops are seen by the general public), but questioning the fact that he can be both a prisoner of war and criminal. He was 15 when he was supposed to have done the deed, he is 21 now. That's a pretty long wait for a trial for a criminal.
Originally posted by HumeAok let's start over. i must apologise for not reading the article in the link. i was responding to humeA questions and i thought he made his post clear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7507216.stm
If possible can we stay away from the well trodden ground of the general human rights issues that Guantanamo brings up? I am using this particular case as an example, and hopefully not the discussion point itself.
The point I would like to question here is slightly more specific: if the US is able to ...[text shortened]... arged on the same counts for having killed one of Saddam's Republican Guard? or an insurgent?
having read the article i must now stress the most important aspect of this issue(in my opinion). nobody seen it or most didn't read the article.
the boy is a Canadian citizen. not iraqi, not afghan. canadian. until now, the americans claimed they are imprisoning terrorists, sadists murderers. this is a Canadian minor. by what right do the americans imprison a canadian minor in an american prison on a crime commited in afghanistan? that person is guilty of murder, or better yet is charged with killing the american soldier(he is yet to be trialed and/or convicted). he should be surrendered to the canadian authorities immediately.
but he will rot in gitmo. the americans do what they want and they sacrifice any freedoms or rights in the name of "freedom". we refer to this as "the american hypocrisy". a while ago(don't think it is a year) an american marine, drunk out of his mind crashed in bucharest into a cab, killing a pretty well known Romanian singer. the americans protected that killer and flew him back to amerika. there he is supposed to be awaiting trial but i am pretty sure he will get off. the americans offered the romanian family 20000$ compensations thinking they would immediately sell their right to justice for what the americans thought it would be enough to buy a romanian life. i wonder what they would pay for an iraqi or a somalian.