Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Monday, June 27, 2005

    Rumsfeld claims Guantanamo investigation "doesn't make sense"

    It's quite obvious why the rogue regime in Washington don't want an investigation into abuse and torture carried out by their crusaders. They don't like being held to account, and through the course of this presidency they have used every available method to get out of being held accountable. The Washington Post reports:

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said an independent commission could explore the atmosphere that permitted abuses, how troops were trained, and the length of detentions.
    See all recent "A Logical Voice" posts


    At 6/29/2005 06:27:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Pelosi should go back to counting her money like all good Democrat millionaires.

    Guantanamo is not a gulag or anything even close, only the deranged left believe it and I suspect it's more of a convenient vehicle for them than an expression of any genuine concern for the supposed "victims".

    This guy, on the other hand, does have something legitimate to say.

    At 6/30/2005 02:10:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    The problem you people have is that you are either pro-lawlessness or you have no idea what the law is. The whole prison itself is illegal under the Lease of Coaling or Naval Stations Agreement Between the United States and Cuba of 1903 and the Platt Amendment of 1903.

    The holding of "detainees" without a hearing to determine their status is illegal under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Finally, many of the regular practices the U.S. has admitted to carrying out in Guantanamo are illegal under Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumanor Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Geneva Conventions and/or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    So which is it? Are you pro-lawlessness, or just ignorant?

    At 6/30/2005 02:20:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    They aren't soldiers and are being treated OK for the most part.
    If a little "stress" is generated in the hard cases I don't care, better that than a successful attack on innocents somewhere.
    I'm sick to death of all the PC BS about their "book" etc, it's part of their training to claim abuse(s), remember.

    At 6/30/2005 08:29:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    Thank you so much for expounding your ignorance. If you actually knew the claims of the Bush administration, you'd be singing a different tune about their status. The White House is trying to claim the right to detain people under the Geneva Conventions while denying it's prisoners the protections of the Geneva Conventions. In other words, they are picking and choosing which parts of the Geneva Convention suit their purposes and throwing away the rest.

    As I said before, the detainees have the right to immediate case-by-case hearings to determine their status. If they are found not to be eligible for protections under the Geneva Conventions, they then have the rights of a human being under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and legal precedent dating back 790 years.

    As for them being treated "OK," thank you for parroting White House claims. Sorry, being held illegally without charge for 3 years is not "OK," unless you are changing your tune and saying that they are prisoners of war, in which case keeping them in a prison is illegal (read the relevant convention).

    What you call "a little stress" has been more carefully documented in numberous reports; and that "little stress" is illegal under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in some cases the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Again, I wonder if you are just ignorant or if you are pro-lawlessness.

    Finally, you were (not so) mysteriously silent on the fact that the entire prison is illegal under the Lease of Coaling or Naval Stations Agreement Between the United States and Cuba of 1903 and the Platt Amendment of 1903. Go figure.

    At 6/30/2005 11:51:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Anonymous, why didn't you actually address the point made, rather than wandering off into your little partisan rant?

    At 7/01/2005 02:02:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    I'll field that one, Voice. The right-wing mind that we usually see around here does not recognise that issues have relevant points and irrelevant ones. I often accuse posters here of making straw man arguments, non sequiturs and ad hominems; but I suspect that they actually think that such arguments are not only relevant, but also valid.


    Post a Comment

    << Home