welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The secret CIA prisons are real, it's Official!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess the specifics about not showing prisoners faces came about during the Abu Graib (sp?) scandle when pictures of prisoners were released to the public. I remember the evening news discussions talking about whether the release of the pictures violated the Geneva Convention. I also remember commentators mentioning that they could not show the faces of prisoners at Gitmo on video due to Geneva conventions.

Why does this particular minor detail need so much scrutinization?
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9524

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: free homework Reply with quote

I gave up and researched it myself for you.

The protection against 'public curiosity' means that the geneva convention forbids public showing of prisoners' faces in 'showcase.' They can't be displayed before spectators, and they can't have images or video be used for the purposes of propagandist showing.

You can still show pictures or footage of them in the news, though. If we really were forbid any public showing of their faces, then you wouldn't have seen pictures of Saddam getting his teeth inspected, since he is presently (and was at the time) considered a POW.

Newsmedia in all countries from the US to the UK and Australia have been cleared and allowed use of images of POW's by their governments, so it appears that your assumption is false -- geneva is not read to create a blanket prohibition against imagery of prisoners of war. You could present images of detainees at trial, but it's a moot point, as kame pointed out -- when he's talking about fair and public trials, this doesn't mean that you have to broadcast the detainee's face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hoookey....
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, I guess I consider public trials to fall under that public scrutiny. I'm thinking of the bogus trials held by Saddam during the first gulf war and how they violated the Geneva Convention.

At any rate, thanks to the Supreme court, we are getting the trials we wanted.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They violated the Geneva convention because they were bogus trials.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I'm betting that the accusations will be flying from anybody who opposes Bush about how his trials are bogus too. Razz
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9524

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:01 pm    Post subject: scandleous Reply with quote

Check: the images and broadcasts -- the whole trial, natch -- was propagandist showcasing.


Purdy easy violation, there. And not just of public scrutiny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, I'm not discounting Saddam's actions as clearly violating the Conventions.


I just can't wait for a prominant Democrat to come forward accusing Bush of the same thing in these upcoming months. Smile
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
And I'm betting that the accusations will be flying from anybody who opposes Bush about how his trials are bogus too. Razz

Because anybody who "opposes" Bush is the sort of person who thinks that the Pentagon orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with missiles and that the whole "terrorism" story is a coverup. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Agamemnon wrote:
And I'm betting that the accusations will be flying from anybody who opposes Bush about how his trials are bogus too. Razz

Because anybody who "opposes" Bush is the sort of person who thinks that the Pentagon orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with missiles and that the whole "terrorism" story is a coverup. Rolling Eyes

Not at all. Some comments that have come from the likes of Murtha and Pelosi have been along these lines. It's not a far reaching prediction.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

if the president gets his way and the trial setting is structured exactly as he wants it, those trials will be fairly bogus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SEEEE!!!??!?!?!?!




Wink Just teasing Very Happy
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9524

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:07 pm    Post subject: feh Reply with quote

Maybe I can see the bogus angle with the trials the administration are pushing for, especially considering that they involve allowing the admission of hearsay as evidence, etc etc

Longer story, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17209
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
mouse wrote:
i heard that they had been transferred to guantanamo.

didn't hear anything about planned trials, or anything else that would give the families of the 9/11 victims the justice bush says they are waiting for.


Bolded below answers this question for you, mouse.
****************

The president also sent Congress a legislative proposal that would aid the government in prosecuting terrorists using secret military tribunals.


so - we are going to give the families justice by means of secret military tribunals? how secret? will they know who is being tried? will they know what those people are convicted of?

will they even know if they _were_ convicted, or if a trial was ever even held?

if the government told me that they might (but they can't tell me if or when) try someone (but they can't tell me whol) for something (but they can't tell me what) related (but they can't tell me in what way) to the death of my loved ones, but they can't tell me if they are convicted or how they will be punished....not sure i would really feel i had gotten justice.

and that's leaving out my firm belief as an american, that everyone deserves a fair trial.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
timmccloud



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 633
Location: Marshall, Wisconsin

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geneva Convention wrote:
fair trial

The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions are forbidden unless all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people have been met and a regularly constituted court has pronounced a judgment. (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec 1d)



If the administration gets it's way, the congress will write new laws to convene special courts that never existed before. I don't see that being a "regularly constituted court" . So the courts will be bogus.

Now if the accused were tried in existing federal courts with full rights accorded to US citizens, I would never consider it to be a bogus court. But there is a really good reason that will never happen - the accused have such minimal evidence against them they would be laughed right out of the court into freedom.

If these courts are created by new laws, and then convened, it confirms a dangerous precedent already occurring in Iraq. Saddam Hussein (One of the worlds bad men, don't get me wrong here), is being tried for crimes based on legislation written by a government that didn't exist until after he was captured. This has already been attacked on numerous legal fronts as being (for want of a better word) bogus as well. Of course the fact the government didn't exist until afterwords will always be a sticking point in any Hussein trial, but we have had a court and justice system since our constitution was written, and there is no need to replace them with any new "tribunals".

Unless of course you want to sidestep 200+ years of American jurisprudence and protections of the innocent. That can be the only reason this administration refuses to try these people in our existing court system, because it knows that it's evidence is insufficient to try them in a real court, and it needs a kangaroo court for convictions.

To quote the bible, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" - this is the spirit of the Geneva convention, even if it's not spelled out like that. We want our soldiers protected if they are captured, so we as signatories to the Geneva Convention hold that enemy prisoners of war, "enemy combatants", hell - Mideast kidnap victims for that matter, are treated fairly and humanely by others, because that's what we would do if we captured you. Until this administration and the genius idea that an "enemy combatant" <> "prisoner of war" even if it is a war (!= for you java and C programmers out there).

The policy's of this administration (see, I'm not blaming the president, I'm blaming the policies of the administrative arm of our government since someone took office in January of 2001) have made things less safe in the world for our captured soldiers and civilians in the light of the "do unto others" concept behind the Geneva convention. And now we plan to write new laws AFTER THE FACT, and charge people with crimes that didn't exist when they were captured, and create special courts with decreased protections of the innocent to try them in.

Any bet's on when you think that this precedent of writing the laws after the prisoner is captured is going to start happening in the US? If you think I'm being silly or paranoid, read on.

You would think there would be a scream from coast to coast if an American Citizen was held in limbo for years without Habeus Corpus or due process, then charged with crimes that didn't exist before their capture, by a biased court without due protections written in our constitution...

...but the case of Jose Padilla proved that the scream will never happen, since he is a US citizen, and was held in limbo for years without being charged with a crime or given any of his due process rights. So here is evidence that the current administration is willing to violate our constitutional rights to fair and speedy trials (at least up to the point immediately before the Supreme Court decides to smack them down), so I would not put it past them to start creating kangaroo courts in the US after this.

If the legislation passes they will be bogus courts, we will be seen as hypocrites to the rest of the world for trumping our vaunted justice system, and then sidestepping that same system whenever we feel like it, we will be less safer in the world as this gives any crackpot group the right to create courts out of thin cloth to "convict" American prisoners.

God, some days I wonder why I left Australia to come back to the US.
I used to be much prouder of my country. Not anymore.
_________________
Wow. Tatsuya is god. Or the dragon...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 2 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group