On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: >>> How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? >>> They are treated worse than animals.
>> The illegal combatants detained in Guantanomo ought not to be treated >> any worse than any other ordinary criminals. All criminals ought to be >> treated equally and according to the risks of their possible escape. >> The detainees in Guantanamo do not however deserve to be treated as well >> as we would treat POW's because the illegal combatants have a criminal >> classification, status, and category. > The only way to classify someone 'a criminal' is by a court decission > and until trial they are supposed to be 'innocent'. In the case of persons captured on the battlefield they can be classified as criminals or POW's by the military authorities. If they are classified as criminals their cases may be disposed of by a military tribunal rather than by a civilian criminal court. The military has officers who are competently trained lawyers and who are well qualified to determine who should be classified as POW's and who should be categorized as criminals. The military will appoint legal counsel to help those who feel they have grounds to protest their classification. > The detainees in Guantanamo are refused a (fair) trail or even legal > advice to defend them selves. Kept in prison outside the US and outside > US law. Guantanamo is a US military base. All US military bases must adhere to US law. > If there is that overwhelming evidence that they are guilty why not give > them a fair trail? Whatever the military tribunal decided is considered fair enough. They are military prisoners. They are not prisoners detained by order of a civilian court. > Are the Talibaan fighters among them realy criminals... they were > defending their country, invaded by US forces. They were not defending their country. They were defending Al Queda, a terrorist organization. They are all war criminals. All war criminals are men without a country. > What was the reason for their arrest? Did they look like Bin Laden? > Did they have a beard? Have they been questioned in Afghanistan and did > they speak English very well? They were caught in the criminal act of serving in either the Taliban or in Al Queda or in some other terrorist organization. > After all, they are over a year now in Guantanamo and still deprived of > decent conditions or a fair trial... if it ever comes to a trial. > Bin Laden & comp is still at large; the information gathered by US > intelligence from those prisoners does not seem of any help. > So why not let them go if there is no sufficient evidence (maybe no > evidence at all?) or give them a fair trail very soon. If we expatriated them to Afghanistan they would likely be put on trial there by the current government and sentenced to death. Would this be a better fate for them? > Is this an example of the "American values" that the 'rest of the world' > is supposed not to understand? Sadam does understand... I don't! > Suggestion to G.W.B... hand them out to the court in The Hague. What should the Hague do with them? Execute them? Expatriate them to Afghanistan? Release them into civilized society and prevent them somehow from returning to their terrorist organizations? Keep them detained somewhere forever? Whatever is finally decided as to what to do with them, I don't think the detainees are going to be happy unless they would totally renounce their terrorist cause. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/