Does this concerns you?

[mog]

I'm pretty sure 'unlawful enemy combatants' are by definition not American. US citizens go through domestic courts; only foreigners end up in Guantanamo.

[TarJak]

One of these "foreigners" is Australian citizen, and white anglo-saxon David hicks who has been incarcerated at Guantonomo for 5 years with out charge or trial.

The Australian Government has completely failed to take the stance that the British Govt too with it's detainees to bring them back to the UK to stand trial or be freed.

I personally don't care whether he is guilty or not but to take 5 years and still not have enve some semblance of a trial is a disgrace to both the US and Australian Govt's IMHO.

[bookworm_020]

I don't care if David Hicks is Guilty or not, but to keep him there, without charge or trial is beyond all understanding. If he had any information that was useful, it would be well out of date now.

Is there a limit on time passed for any charge to be laid?? Will he have the right to sue the US Government for wongful detention if released without charge?

This is not improving US-Australian relations, then again, our government isn't doing much either!!

[TarJak]

There is a limit in most legal systems EXCEPT in the case of the special military commission set up to handle the Guantomono detainees. Surely this is a human rights issue. Either charge him or release him, I don't care but 5 years without charge is a crime in itself!

[Grayback]

Originally Posted by mog

I'm pretty sure 'unlawful enemy combatants' are by definition not American. US citizens go through domestic courts; only foreigners end up in Guantanamo.

Isn't Jose Padilla an American citizen? Whether or not he's in Guantanamo, our government is (or tried to) treating him like an enemy combatant.

[Safe-Keeper]

The ACLU is just a hype machine that succeeds in making people like you worry in an effort to make you take action - this in turn makes it easier for them to push ahead their agenda.

It's funny to note how every critic of a cause with no arguments finds itself rather than its arguments attacked. From the critics of the 9/11 conspiracy theory to the anti-Bush activists - all suddenly have thousands of skeletons in the closet from the nano-second they decide to commit the heinous crime of speaking their mind.

Day 1: Popular Mechanics is a respected science magazine.
Day 2: Popular Mechanics posts an article shooting down the 9/11 conspiracy theory about Bush being behind 9/11.
Day 3: In a surprising turn of events, the 9/11 truth movement brands Popular Mechanics a Bush-loving propaganda machine.

Not that the people with no arguments are the only ones with this problem. Point a liberal in the direction of a FOX "News" article and he'll be sure to tell you that it's below his dignity to read the spoutings of what is obviously a neo-con propaganda machine. And you all heard Al Gore accusing critics of global warming to be paid by the oil industry.

Either way, my point is this: I don't care what you have against the A.C.L.U. You could be amongst the conspiracy theorists who believe them to be plotting to make America communistic for all I care. Refute their arguments, not them.

The FBI even rates them as a possible terrorist organization a while back and keeps them under survalience.

A possible terrorist organization? Have you any evidence of terrorist acts carried out by them? Have you any evidence of them forging documents or outright lying?

And even if you don't trust them to report properly, there's still no excuse for not looking up their sources and reviewing them. Except, of course, blind faith in the Bush Administration and/or FBI.

I'm pretty sure 'unlawful enemy combatants' are by definition not American. US citizens go through domestic courts; only foreigners end up in Guantanamo.

Until recently, foreigners went through the court system, too - even Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the courthouse in Oklahoma, was given a trial. This was of course back in the old days before Dubya's regime - before Papa Bush proclaimed that all Busholic believers must now believe torture is perfectly fine and an estabilished rule centuries old - that torture is always unacceptable - was broken down in an instant by one of the world's most civilized, democratic, and proud countries (I've lived in Houston for three years. I know what a splendid nation the USA is).

OK, next point: Don't believe the ACLU? What about the Red Cross, who, after visiting Guantánamo, published a report stating that America was in blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions (which Bush and his neo-cons apparently understands better than the organization who made the conventions in the first place)? What about the word of the Tipton Three, the innocent British men tortured in Guantánamo? What about Human Rights Watch? What about the testimonies of American soldiers participating in the torture at Abu Grahib and Guantánamo (see previous link)? What about Amnesty International? Or, of course, what about the word of your Dear Leader and his party members, from Bush to Rumsfeld, verbally defending torture?

Don't beleive the hype. There is probably some truth - such as the facility is being built, but the rest is guaranteed blown way out of proportion.

Pardon me, but does anyone else than me find it provoking how certain people can invade a sovereign nation illegally on the basis of speculation and unproven statements ("OMG, WMDZ!"), for then to, when accused of misdoings themselves, find within them the guts to ask, with a straight face, for evidence?

Make up your mind: Innocent until proven guilty - or guilty until proven innnocent?

Does this concern people in the US? :hmm:

Shouldn't torture concern everybody, American or not?

PS: As a paying and highly active Red Cross volunteer, I'm prepared to address any mis-conceptions about the Geneva Conventions not applying to the Guantánamo detainees - just for the record, they very much do. As does, for the matter, the UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5 should interest people here).