Mr Habib released (2 Viewers)

[Lorie]

Not according to the Geneva convention.

damn straight, Bush has taken Geneva convention and wiped it with his cheerleading arse. America is a signitry to it, but they have found ways around it. Even though he was found by the "coalition of the willing" he was under american control. And the americans then placed him in land in Cuba, that they rent. It is cuban soil but from some old agreement the land gets rented off the cubans by the americans. But they aviod giving them the same rights as Americans by the fact that it's in cuba.

And of course there is that concept of soverignity, that gives individual countrys to do what ever the hell they want.

I know that it is wrong, and Bush had no right, but thats the silly way he got around it. And the fact that our government has done jack all to ratify that.

 

[Captain pi]

Not according to the Geneva convention.

Selective reading: how about you actually read the convention, rather than parroting parts from disingenuous politicians.

Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

They were not prisoners of wars. In international law they have no rights.

Such as spys they have no legal status protecting them and could be executed on the spot if it was desired.

I don't know what sort of "international law" permits extrajudicial killing, but it certainly isn't the rights the US claims to adhere to.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Explain to me how a suspected spy could be granted an effective remedy from:

Article 11

1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

And while you're at it, explain how extrajudicial killing, or "execution of spys on the spot, if desired" (slight paraphrase) would conform to this Article.

As to the wider thread, it pleases me that there are so many people concerned about the maintenance of human rights and a similar number appalled by the Bush & Howard administrations' actions in regard to Messrs Habib and Hicks. It is important to note that if we are going to deny people's rights to freedom legitmately, we have to ensure that we do so in a manner which makes the deprivation of rights as comfortable as possible. Guantênamo Bay is hardly minimizing harm to people whose rights have been violated: torture seems common, and human rights abuses are worse than some condemned by the US State department (Azabaijan, Jordon). The naval base on the occupied island of Diego Garcia is completely closed to human rights organizations and lawyers, let alone families and journalists; considering what has happened to relatively open bases, and reports by soldiers coming out of there, the situation is much worse.

The reason we have a Universal Declaration on Human Rights and absolute prohibitions on torture is because mankind has learnt that the violation of these rights produce more harm than good.

PS: When it says

Y

it means that "I am quoting Y from X."

 

[Xayma]

Selective reading: how about you actually read the convention, rather than parroting parts from disingenuous politicians.

There was no doubt. They did not qualify any of those categories.

I don't know what sort of "international law" permits extrajudicial killing, but it certainly isn't the rights the US claims to adhere to.

The USA won't execute them without a military tribunal. However, spies were executed by both sides (in WWII and most probably later on) without judicial hearings, spies not qualifing for any part of the prisoner of war convention, did not qualify for the treatment of such.

In refrence to the constitution bit, what context is that in, his home country, or the country from which he was arrested?

As to the wider thread, it pleases me that there are so many people concerned about the maintenance of human rights and a similar number appalled by the Bush & Howard administrations' actions in regard to Messrs Habib and Hicks. It is important to note that if we are going to deny people's rights to freedom legitmately, we have to ensure that we do so in a manner which makes the deprivation of rights as comfortable as possible. Guantênamo Bay is hardly minimizing harm to people whose rights have been violated: torture seems common, and human rights abuses are worse than some condemned by the US State department (Azabaijan, Jordon). The naval base on the occupied island of Diego Garcia is completely closed to human rights organizations and lawyers, let alone families and journalists; considering what has happened to relatively open bases, and reports by soldiers coming out of there, the situation is much worse.

The reason we have a Universal Declaration on Human Rights and absolute prohibitions on torture is because mankind has learnt that the violation of these rights produce more harm than good.

The (possible although probable) treatment of inmates at Guantênamo Bay (and alot of prisons all over the world) does not mean that those held there should be released, or have the right to be told of the charges possible against them. But rather multinational (UN) groups should investigate the humans right issues on accusations of torture only and the violations of the conventions rather then recommending that they be told of charges etc.

 

[joujou_84]

so xayma....wat ur saying is...i could be sitting at home, minding my own buisness and then get picked up, taken to guantanemo bay............and thats it........i now have no rights at all........wat if im innocent.......

 

[Xayma]

I highly doubt that without consent of the nation in which you are you could be taken, although I don't know much of Pakistans role in this matter.

 

[Captain pi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain pi
Selective reading: how about you actually read the convention, rather than parroting parts from disingenuous politicians.


There was no doubt. They did not qualify any of those categories.

As I said, read the actual convention. Or, at least, read this Article:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

Therefore, because they do not fall into any of the categories, as you say, they are protected under the Geneva Convention.

The USA won't execute them without a military tribunal.

The key word is competent; many of those elected to hear the tribunals are woefully incompetent (not knowing how many Geneva Conventions etc.)

The (possible although probable) treatment of inmates at Guantênamo Bay (and alot of prisons all over the world) does not mean that those held there should be released, or have the right to be told of the charges possible against them.

Well, I don't know on what you are basing that, but if you were tortured in Australia, you would be released (under law), because all evidence against you (that is, confessions, because they wouldn't have tortured you if they had insuff. evidence) would be deemed inadmissible.
I'll agree that they shouldn't be allowed to freely communicate with whomever they like; but habeus corpus must exist, and they must have access to an independent appeal/complaints tribunal. In my opinion, these prisoners should all be dealt with by the UN or the International Criminal Court or the ICJ or some international tribunal. The US refused to sign to the ICC, and, unfortunately, can (in practice) no longer be held accountable for the actions.

Oh, and explain to me how telling suspected terrorists what they are possibly going to be charged with is going to somehow threaten security, or anything at all. (Maybe they'll be able to organize their defence earlier, and actually be found innocent: oh no!)

 

[Xayma]

Therefore, because they do not fall into any of the categories, as you say, they are protected under the Geneva Convention.

No. There is no doubt if they belong. They do not in any way satisfy any of those conditions (well Mr. Habib didn't at least). The only ones that would have a chance under that are Afghani's who raised arms against the USA after they invaded, without any ties to the Taliban.

 

[Captain pi]

No. There is no doubt if they belong. They do not in any way satisfy any of those conditions (well Mr. Habib didn't at least). The only ones that would have a chance under that are Afghani's who raised arms against the USA after they invaded, without any ties to the Taliban.

Please explain Article 5:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

Explain how any person "having fallen into the hands of the enemy" (as Habib and Hicks have) could not be granted protection under the Geneva Convention. Is there an exclusion clause?

 

[Xayma]

There was no doubt as to if they fell under the conditions of the act. They simply didn't, there wasn't any confusion if they did or did not fall under it.

Doubt may arise mainly through condition 6. at what amount of time would be necessary for them to have organised themselves.

In Iraq initially the rebels could have been considered POW's under the last point. Now, they would not if they do not belong to an organised resistance movement. There would be a grey area inbetween.

 

[Generator]

I'm happy to see that a person's rights are clearly dependent upon their position within a westernised view of the world... Great stuff.

Edit: That in itself isn't so bad when you consider the idea of human rights in the first place, but when it comes to political involvement and notions of citisenship... Too many shades of grey (and colours of the rainbow), I think.

 

[Captain pi]

No doubt is any doubt.

"Enemy Combantants" is not a category enumerated in the Geneva Conventions.

If someone is labelled an "enemy combatant", there is doubt as to whether they are not an 'enemy combantant'.

Therefore, "enemy combatants" are entitled to enjoy the rights of the Geneva Convention absolutely.

If there enemy state (the US) does not recognize an organized movement, they are obliged to recognize that movement for the purposes of the Geneva Convention.

The matter is closed. I wish the US would admit this.

 

[miaomiao]

Here, here captain pi

 

[Lorie]

No doubt is any doubt.

"Enemy Combantants" is not a category enumerated in the Geneva Conventions.

If someone is labelled an "enemy combatant", there is doubt as to whether they are not an 'enemy combantant'.

Therefore, "enemy combatants" are entitled to enjoy the rights of the Geneva Convention absolutely.

If there enemy state (the US) does not recognize an organized movement, they are obliged to recognize that movement for the purposes of the Geneva Convention.

The matter is closed. I wish the US would admit this.

very true, but i really doubt the Americans will admit to this. I really can't believe the Australian government has (and in the case of Hicks, still have) let this happen. Habib was captured as an emeny of the coalition of the willing, and the Americans just took control. Surely, the Australian government could've at least got Habib on Australian soil.

 

[Captain pi]

If only they had ratified the Rome Treaty and the ICC, then they could just hand them over to it; no cruel or illegal detention; fair and just treatment.

 

[sly fly]

excuse me XAYMA but ur obviously ignorant when it comes to international law.........theres something called the ICCPR, go nd read it and then post ur ideas.........he does have rights because he hasn't been charged (its called no detention without trial)

 

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...ed-with-familys/2005/01/28/1106850099387.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...ied-says-Downer/2005/01/28/1106850099390.html

Mr Downer denied any Australian involvement or knowledge of the abuse.

"They can look for what they like. They won't find anything," he said of Mr Hopper's inquiries.

"We have not a skerrick of evidence that any Australian has been involved in abusing Mr Habib."

Nothing to say whether they had any knowledge of the abuse or not... Selective reporting within a brief breaking news article, I guess.

 

[katie_tully]

Did you see the news report just then?
This guy isnt going to get any peace, they just spent 20 minutes discussing how, when, why, and where habib entered the country.

 

[tattoodguy]

i hope he gets shit loads for selling his story to the tv..and sues the government and makes millions.


goood on him...............and then i hope he takes his family and goes back to where he originated from.

our government is pathetic.

 

[mr EaZy]

i hope he gets cash too

but no one ever said he was planning to sell his story (id say he will)

it took holocaust survivors about 20 years? to start talking right?

but then again this is different, the whole world was in one way or another interested in the guantanamo story and still is. im sure some amnesty international guy wants him to talk about how he was mistreated and then say "this is illegal"

then again, a lot of things govs do, are either technically right or wrong, amnesty int has made many complaints before, not much has been done about it though, look at our own detention centres, should the people there be able to sell their stories too? (if anyone was willing to buy?)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Mr Habib released...

About time, it's been hard to get a good quality kebab in my town for ages now.