Hatunen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:24:00 +1300, Greg Procter
>
ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >>Hatunen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:43:50 +1300, Greg Procter
>>>
ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>Hatunen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:52:12 +0000, Don Aitken
>>>>>
freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:53:25 -0700, Hatunen
cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:41:23 +1100, Peter Moylan
>>>>>>>
ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Peter Duncanson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:41:18 -0000, "gn gnu d" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current name is unsatisfactory: *all* nations consist of
>>>>>>>>>> provinces or states which are, by definition, "united"; and America
>>>>>>>>>> refers nominally to the entire Americas (North, South and Central),
>>>>>>>>>> not to just one part.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please, please, please, drop this idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a danger that some USAites will seek to correct this
>>>>>>>>> nominational anomaly by forceably uniting all of the
>>>>>>>>> countries/states/nations of the Americas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You mean bring Guantánamo Bay under the jurisdiction of the Supreme
>>>>>>>>Court? Not under the current administration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's more compliated than you make it seem The treaty with Cuba
>>>>>>>which granted Guantanamo to the Americans for a naval base
>>>>>>>specifically states that Cuba retains soverignty over it. This is
>>>>>>>the hook the Bushies use to claim it is not covered by the US
>>>>>>>Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without reading the actual opinion I can't tell whether the issue
>>>>> of Cuban sovereingty plays a role in the decision; I doubt it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah. Skimming through the opinion, it addresses the question of
>>>>> courts-martial for the Gitmo detainees and has nothing to do with
>>>>> sovereignty. It appears the Bush administration has the problem
>>>>> that once it pointed out that American law and the Constitution
>>>>> doesn't run there, they have no basis for any sort of trial save
>>>>> a court-martial.
>>>>
>>>>There's always the Geneva Conventions - however you long since blew that
>>>>one!
>>>
>>> So. You read the decision too, eh?
>>>
>>> The question at hand was whether the government had the authority
>>> to subject the detainess to courts-martial.
>>
>>Some of us were asking much broader and more basic questions, such as
>>why your government considered it had the authority to detain those
>>detainees.
>
> You may not be aware of it, isolated as you are out there in the
> Pacific Ocean, notwithstanding your claims as to your greater
> sensitity as to what goes on elsewhere, but a lot of Americans
> are asking that same question.
I am aware.
>
>>> SCOTUS replied they
>>> did not, because there was no feeral authorization for such
>>> tribunals and because it would violate international law. They
>>> mention the Third Geneva convention in the decision. But that has
>>> nothing ot do with my comment about the validity of American law
>>> and the US Constitution in Gitmo; courts-martial and tribunals
>>> would fall under the Genevea Convention but SCOTUS told the
>>> administration, in effect, they used it wrong. Henceforth please
>>> read more carefully before commenting.
>>
>>The problem here is that you are not dealing with US citizens, so US law
>>becomes an irrelevance. You are detaining citizens of other countries
>>illegaly and in doing so are breaking the Geneva convention.
>>
>>THINK before you try to tell me what is and what isn't acceptable
>>discussion.
>
> Hey. Beleive it or not, I actually agree with you. My immediately
> preceding postings were to point out what we are disagreeing
> with, since you seem to lack an understanding of all the nuances
> thereof.
I'm merely pointing out that your bickerings about points of _US law_
are irrelevant in regard to the bigger international crime your nation
is involved in.
The (or one of the) point(s) of the Geneva convention is that it sets a
standard for treatment of captives in times of war.
Signatory nations agree to treat their prisoners as set out in the
Geneva Conventions, whether or not those they are attacking are
signatories. The US has entirely failed to meet those standards in
recent conflicts. Your reputation has dived towards zero because of your
actions. That reputation is what you should be concerned about. (first)
Regards,
Greg.P.
