Australian David Hicks FYI
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:47:47 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

You can't say, can you?

What's up, Dave? Cat got your tongue?

Nah. Some HS just isn't worth replying to.

I take that as a concession. You won't answer because you know that,
after 3 years of detention, there hasn't been a single trial.

PDW

Australian David Hicks FYI
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote
I take that as a concession. You won't answer because you know that,
after 3 years of detention, there hasn't been a single trial.

You are missing an important point. There are no trials in any US prison
because the people held there have already been tried and found guilty - in
the case of Gitmo, by military tribunals in Afghanistan or Iraq before they
got there.

According to international law and US law, non-combatant civilians are owed
certain treatment and rights. POWs - combatants in uniform - are slightly
different but still humane treatment. OTOH spies, insurgents, terrorists,
saboteurs and the like - combatants captured in the act and out of uniform -
have no such rights. That is the case with those held at Gitmo and other
places. Saddam"s Republican Guards, uniformed soldiers who fought us
honorably and lost, deserve to be treated as POWs. Taliban and al Qaeda
fighters, who dress as civilians and shoot at us from orphanages and mosques
do not - and that's what's at Gitmo.

But you are right. We should not hold them indefinately. Once we have
whatever information we can get from them they should be hanged, as
prescribed by international law.

Australian David Hicks FYI
 

In article , Vito
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote
I take that as a concession. You won't answer because you know that,
after 3 years of detention, there hasn't been a single trial.

You are missing an important point. There are no trials in any US prison
because the people held there have already been tried and found guilty - in
the case of Gitmo, by military tribunals in Afghanistan or Iraq before they
got there.

According to international law and US law, non-combatant civilians are owed
certain treatment and rights. POWs - combatants in uniform - are slightly
different but still humane treatment. OTOH spies, insurgents, terrorists,
saboteurs and the like - combatants captured in the act and out of uniform -
have no such rights. That is the case with those held at Gitmo and other
places. Saddam"s Republican Guards, uniformed soldiers who fought us
honorably and lost, deserve to be treated as POWs. Taliban and al Qaeda
fighters, who dress as civilians and shoot at us from orphanages and mosques
do not - and that's what's at Gitmo.

But you are right. We should not hold them indefinately. Once we have
whatever information we can get from them they should be hanged, as
prescribed by international law.

Right. I hope all your soldiers reading this get a warm inner glow.
You're basically legitimising indefinite detention and torture to
obtain information, followed by execution. Right?

You *do* know why humane treatment of prisoners was agreed to by most
nations some 100 years or so ago, don't you?

Look at how prisoners were treated during your own Civil War. As I've
said elsewhere, you act in a civilised fashion because you are
civilised, not because of what your enemy does.

PDW