Kidnappers say British hostage commits suicide

[Ravi]

Actually I would go further than that, Ravi is implying not only that there are innocent people in Gitmo, but that our putting a few innocent people there is the same as a terrorist group which deliberately kidnaps an innocent person.

And you call me a liar. You're as big of an asshole as Wuh.

 

[Charles_Main]

And you call me a liar. You're as big of an asshole as Wuh.

sure Ravi, I state my opinion on what you are implying with your comparison and you call it a lie so then if I am wrong, tell me what you did mean by your comment again? If not that we were the same as them then what? Or you could just call me some names again, you seem to be very good at least at that.

 

[Wow]

Terrorists illegally torture and murder a British POW and violate International law.

 

[Glori.B]

Maybe you people have a guilty conscience, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

There have been innocent people in Gitmo, according to our government at least. Even Dubya will back me up on this one.

But that's beside the point. How can you blame one group for killing innocents and not another? Innocents, mind you.

That in no way implies that I think the terrorists are good people and not responsible for any killings they make, but please keep acting like an idiot.

you're right, your statement didn't say all that these others are now attempting to draw out of it...which is what made dillo's statement funny to me...funny cuz it's truuuuuue.

oh I get it ---you are just educating us with a little reminder that if you are keeping someone against their will, you are responsible for them. gee thanks !

 

[Wow]

And you call me a liar. You're as big of an asshole as Wuh.

He did not call you a liar!

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Yep, but even if he did kill himself, his blood is on the kidnappers hands.

Yep, no question about that.

thats correct--you dont. So assuming they are simply to imply that Americans are just like Iraqi hostage takers is silly.

I guess it isn't a very correct assumption, but it does raise a good point- nobody knows if anyone there is innocent or guilty of anything. That's why it's usually illegal to keep someone locked up indefinitely with no trial and no evidence. If it's an innocent person who kills himself in Guantanamo, there isn't much of a difference between that person and the hostage.

 

[Charles_Main]

I guess it isn't a very correct assumption, but it does raise a good point- nobody knows if anyone there is innocent or guilty of anything. That's why it's usually illegal to keep someone locked up indefinitely with no trial and no evidence. If it's an innocent person who kills himself in Guantanamo, there isn't much of a difference between that person and the hostage.

I think when terrorist randomly kidnap a civilian off the street, they can be pretty sure they are kidnapping an innocent person. Maybe I was a but harsh on ravi, but it sure sounded to me like he/she was pulling the old moral equivalence argument. That gets me pretty mad when I here it. I see no comparison between the US possibly picking up a few Innocent people and sending them to gitmo(remember nearly all of them were picked up on a battle field) and terrorist simply picking up a random civilian on the street. Even if the street was in Iraq.

If it's an innocent person who kills himself in Guantanamo, there isn't much of a difference between that person and the hostage.

The difference is we picked them up in good faith, believing them to be an enemy combatant, when the terrorist picked up this guy exactly because he was a civilian, and an easy target.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

One death is no less traumatic than the other. Would you be consoled if you got imprisoned for life (and innocent), for example, if the people who were doing it really thought you were guilty? I wouldn't.

 

[Charles_Main]

One death is no less traumatic than the other. Would you be consoled if you got imprisoned for life (and innocent), for example, if the people who were doing it really thought you were guilty? I wouldn't.

No I can't say that I would, but when looking at the 2 cases side by side as we are. I can see a clear difference between them, can't you?

not to mention that the case of the Dead Brit is a real life case, and the case of an innocent in Gitmo committing suicide is pure speculation, as we have no proof that anyone who is in Gitmo is Innocent, nor that any Innocent person in Gitmo has committed suicide. which is a big part of why Ravi's comment irked me so.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

No, believe me, there is a difference, in one you know they were innocent, in the other one, nobody's got a clue. As far as I recall, in liberal democracies like the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody's got a clue, I don't see any reason to believe they were guilty of anything. Had they been tried in a court of law, at least you could remove some of the doubt, but since they never were, then there's no difference, between one innocent man being killing himself in captivity and another innocent man killing himself in captivity.

The big difference is that when the American army is the captor, it's ok. If it's not, it's not ok. Both are bad, in my opinion.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Guantanamo suicides 'acts of war'

^ Suicides at Guantanamo Bay. Not mention a very skilled exercise in doublethink.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, believe me, there is a difference, in one you know they were innocent, in the other one, nobody's got a clue. As far as I recall, in liberal democracies like the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody's got a clue, I don't see any reason to believe they were guilty of anything. Had they been tried in a court of law, at least you could remove some of the doubt, but since they never were, then there's no difference, between one innocent man being killing himself in captivity and another innocent man killing himself in captivity.

The big difference is that when the American army is the captor, it's ok. If it's not, it's not ok. Both are bad, in my opinion.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Guantanamo suicides 'acts of war'

^ Suicides at Guantanamo Bay. Not mention a very skilled exercise in doublethink.

Flawed logic all round. There is NO court required, no trial and pressumption of innocence for people caught under arms fighting us. In fact one can hold Prisoners of War indefinately until the war ends. Remind me? Has the War ended? Further in war one can execute spy's, a spy being any person under arms or working for the enemy that is not identifiable as a member of the enemies armed forces. Personally I think once we are done with them we should line them up and shoot their asses. We already have proof releasing them only puts them back under arms against us.

 

[Charles_Main]

No, believe me, there is a difference, in one you know they were innocent, in the other one, nobody's got a clue. As far as I recall, in liberal democracies like the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody's got a clue, I don't see any reason to believe they were guilty of anything. Had they been tried in a court of law, at least you could remove some of the doubt, but since they never were, then there's no difference, between one innocent man being killing himself in captivity and another innocent man killing himself in captivity.

The big difference is that when the American army is the captor, it's ok. If it's not, it's not ok. Both are bad, in my opinion.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Guantanamo suicides 'acts of war'

^ Suicides at Guantanamo Bay. Not mention a very skilled exercise in doublethink.

Ahh so you are one of those who wants to extend our constitutional rights to enemies taken on a foreign field of battle simply because they are held on a US military base. I see, Total BS, but at least I know where you are coming from now.

Enemy combatants are not innocent until proven Guilty bud, never have been never will. That is just an insane way to look at it, but to each his own I guess.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

OH my god, dude.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

The Geneva Conventions: the core of international humanitarian law

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's called the GENEVA CONVENTION.

Edit: Well, yeah, what the Sgt. says is right, there is none of that until the war is over. It still holds that they should be declared prisoners of war and held to Geneva Convention standards.

 

[Ravi]

Epsilon, thank you. It's also true that we haven't declared a war, so these people aren't technically prisoners of war. And it is also true that according to our government, quite a few of them were rounded up in sweeps and were guilty of nothing.

An innocent person is no less innocent because we are the ones doing the imprisoning, no matter how pure our motives are.

 

[editec]

In the minds of the people holding prisoners in GITMO, they are not innocent.

In the minds of the people holding prisoners in Iraq, they are not innocent, either.

One man's prisoner is another man's hostage, folks.

Isn't that obvious?

 

[Wow]

In the minds of the people holding prisoners in GITMO, they are not innocent.

In the minds of the people holding prisoners in Iraq, they are not innocent, either.

One man's prisoner is another man's hostage, folks.

Isn't that obvious?

The hostages, an IT consultant named Peter Moore and four bodyguards, were kidnapped almost 14 months ago from the Iraqi finance ministry by a Shi’ite group. They are seeking the release of nine prisoners in American detention.
This would be an act of terrorism committed by Muslim terrorists.
Terrorists are torturing innocent civilians.

 

[Rhys]

The hostages, an IT consultant named Peter Moore and four bodyguards, were kidnapped almost 14 months ago from the Iraqi finance ministry by a Shi’ite group. They are seeking the release of nine prisoners in American detention.
This would be an act of terrorism committed by Muslim terrorists.
Terrorists are torturing innocent civilians.

All the prisoners in the Guatanamo concentration camp are innocent, obviously, since they have never been tried in a legal court for any offence. They are not prisoners of war, obviously, because they do not belong to a belligerent state.
Like the other kidnap victims they are being held by fundamentalist madmen who care nothing for justice or human rights and who should be hanged.

 

[editec]

The hostages, an IT consultant named Peter Moore and four bodyguards, were kidnapped almost 14 months ago from the Iraqi finance ministry by a Shi’ite group. They are seeking the release of nine prisoners in American detention.
This would be an act of terrorism committed by Muslim terrorists.
Terrorists are torturing innocent civilians.

Yeah, right...and what does that have to do with my post?

You disagree with the terrorists who think that those guys were not innocent?

Sorta proves my point, doesn't it?

 

[Wow]

All the prisoners in the Guatanamo concentration camp are innocent, obviously, since they have never been tried in a legal court for any offence. They are not prisoners of war, obviously, because they do not belong to a belligerent state.
Like the other kidnap victims they are being held by fundamentalist madmen who care nothing for justice or human rights and who should be hanged.

Terrorists have violated International law by torturing and murdering civilians.

 

[Charles_Main]

So where does the geneva convention say we must extend US constitutional rights to them? Maybe I am just a moron, but I do not see it anywhere. In fact I see a clause in the GC that says enemies taken out of uniform can be treated as spies and shot.

Still sure you want us to follow the GC?