sandy18 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 So he was a prisoner of war held under Geneva Convention was he? The government paid hush money to people held under Geneva Convention did they? Stop making up rubbish. The USA claim he was an enemy combatant and held as such, he wasn't charged because you can't charge enemy combatants with a crime other than a war crime and to my knowledge there is no evidence he committed a war crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The USA claim he was an enemy combatant and held as such, he wasn't charged because you can't charge enemy combatants with a crime other than a war crime and to my knowledge there is no evidence he committed a war crime. Provide evidence he was held under Geneva Convention. Do you even know what the Geneva Convention contains without giving a cut and paste off Wikipedia? And what conditions you must hold someone under it without committing a war crime yourself? Because of course if you did you'd see why the US doesn't ever state he was held under Geneva Convention because they were in breach of it so if they had held him under it, they would be guilty of a war crime. Welcome to international law. Bush said that they were 'aiming' for Guantanamo Bay to maintain Geneva standards, not that people held there were actually being held under it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy18 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Provide evidence he was held under Geneva Convention. Do you even know what the Geneva Convention contains without giving a cut and paste off Wikipedia? And what conditions you must hold someone under it without committing a war crime yourself? Because of course if you did you'd see why the US doesn't ever state he was held under Geneva Convention because they were in breach of it so if they had held him under it, they would be guilty of a war crime. Welcome to international law. Bush said that they were 'aiming' for Guantanamo Bay to maintain Geneva standards, not that people held there were actually being held under it. What evidence do you have that they breached his rights under the Geneva Convention. None of that alters the fact he was held because he was considered to be an enemy combatant and its not legal to charge enemy combatants with a crime. He should be pursuing his war crime claims in the International Criminal Courts and his case shouldn't be funded by British tax payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Its not illegal to be the enemy so he can't be charged with the crime of being the enemy, but it is legal to imprison the enemy until the end of hostilities, and hostilities haven't ended. The US were very careful to NOT designate the other side as "enemy combatants" though if I remember correctly. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:10 ---------- The USA claim he was an enemy combatant and held as such, he wasn't charged because you can't charge enemy combatants with a crime other than a war crime and to my knowledge there is no evidence he committed a war crime. The detainee's at Guantanamo were most certainly not held as if under the Geneva convention! ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:11 ---------- What evidence do you have that they breached his rights under the Geneva Convention. None of that alters the fact he was held because he was considered to be an enemy combatant and its not legal to charge enemy combatants with a crime. He should be pursuing his war crime claims in the International Criminal Courts and his case shouldn't be funded by British tax payers. Is his case being funded? Or did you just assume/make that up? If it's entirely without merit, then it will be a very short case won't it, so what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 What evidence do you have that they breached his rights under the Geneva Convention. None of that alters the fact he was held because he was considered to be an enemy combatant and its not legal to charge enemy combatants with a crime. He should be pursuing his war crime claims in the International Criminal Courts and his case shouldn't be funded by British tax payers. Perhaps. Now maybe something we can almost agree on I would be surprised if he could have been held as a POW, however, I'm just an ex-Army Officer rather than an international law lawyer, but GC states that only members of the enemy armed forces or armed militia can be held under GC as POWs. He was neither. He wasn't armed, he wasn't proven(and STILL hasn't) to be a member of any enemy militia and he wasn't part of an enemy (countries) Armed Forces. I will admit, the GC was written after WW2 to counter the Nazi and Japanese camps in part, so it is possible that current terrorist groups avoid mention in the GC as they didn't really exist in the 1950s and perhaps GC should be updated, but while the law is as it is, it MUST be followed or face the consequences. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:17 ---------- The US were very careful to NOT designate the other side as "enemy combatants" though if I remember correctly. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:10 ---------- The detainee's at Guantanamo were most certainly not held as if under the Geneva convention! ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:11 ---------- Is his case being funded? Or did you just assume/make that up? If it's entirely without merit, then it will be a very short case won't it, so what's the problem? That is entirely correct Cyclone, as they would NOT have wanted Geneva Convention to apply as that would have given the UN rights to inspect the conditions without notice and that may have ben kinda awkward for the 'land of the free'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Stone Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 So he was a prisoner of war held under Geneva Convention was he? The government paid hush money to people held under Geneva Convention did they? Stop making up rubbish. You're very rude. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:24 ---------- The detainee's at Guantanamo were most certainly not held as if under the Geneva convention!? Of course not they were a terrorist organisation, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 You're very rude. Why? Telling someone they are making stuff up? I'd say being happy to lock someone up for 13 years with no charges would be rude but there we go. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:25 ---------- You're very rude. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 10:24 ---------- Of course not they were a terrorist organisation, LOL! So now you agree with me that Sandy was making stuff up? Glad we came to an understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Stone Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 What evidence do you have that they breached his rights under the Geneva Convention. None of that alters the fact he was held because he was considered to be an enemy combatant and its not legal to charge enemy combatants with a crime. He should be pursuing his war crime claims in the International Criminal Courts and his case shouldn't be funded by British tax payers. Agree 101% he was a terrorist and does not deserve to be treat as anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Agree 101% he was a terrorist and does not deserve to be treat as anything else. You are getting yourself all tied up in knots here aren't you? So Sandy there was saying he should claim against the Geneva Convention as US apparently stated he was held as a prisoner of war. You then said he wasn't held as POW as he was a terrorist, not covered by GC. Then you said you agreed with Sandy 101% (so you aren't any good at maths either), when you'd just said he wasn't held under GC as he was a terrorist. Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Would he have been classed as an internee or detainees ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts