Report: US currently holding children at Gitmo

From the Guardian Unlimited

Fine. Decry the source as socialist. But try to deny the fact that the US is holding teenagers under the age of 16 (legally defined children) at the base in Cuba. This is a gross violation of human rights and of the Geneva Conventions. Oh wait, that's right: the War on Terrorism isn't defined by the US as a war. So apparently you have to declare war on the US in order to get any sort of protection under international conventions. I could've sworn that happened on 9-11.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
From the Guardian Unlimited

Fine. Decry the source as socialist. But try to deny the fact that the US is holding teenagers under the age of 16 (legally defined children) at the base in Cuba. This is a gross violation of human rights and of the Geneva Conventions. Oh wait, that''s right: the War on Terrorism isn''t defined by the US as a war. So apparently you have to declare war on the US in order to get any sort of protection under international conventions. I could''ve sworn that happened on 9-11.

Terrorist aren''t fighting for a state.

But they were fighting for the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. By your logic, the soldiers that fought for Saddam are terrorists too.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
But they were fighting for the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. By your logic, the soldiers that fought for Saddam are terrorists too.

No. The Iraqi''s are different because they''re fighting for a state. Al Queada isn''t a state.

My problem is that they have some people there for over a year. They need to start proccessing the people and either throw them in prison, send them back home, put them to death, whatever. Just keeping people locked up with no trial (Military works) is wrong.

I think if were going to hold them as enemy combatants then we need to treat them as such. Right now it looks like we adhere to the rules of combat when it suits us, and discard it when it doesn''t.

Were holding children in prison? Well theyre not fighting a war, so the Geneva convention doesnt count.

Were holding people without trial? Were fighting a war here, people!

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:
""]I think if were going to hold them as enemy combatants then we need to treat them as such. Right now it looks like we adhere to the rules of combat when it suits us, and discard it when it doesn''t.

Were holding children in prison? Well theyre not fighting a war, so the Geneva convention doesnt count.

Were holding people without trial? Were fighting a war here, people!

We need to proccess them. That means trials. Just keeping them there is wrong. Throw them in prison if they''re guilty or send them home if they were just ''caught in the middle.''

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Pyroman[FO" wrote:
""]I think if were going to hold them as enemy combatants then we need to treat them as such. Right now it looks like we adhere to the rules of combat when it suits us, and discard it when it doesn''t.

Were holding children in prison? Well theyre not fighting a war, so the Geneva convention doesnt count.

Were holding people without trial? Were fighting a war here, people!

We need to proccess them. That means trials. Just keeping them there is wrong. Throw them in prison if they''re guilty or send them home if they were just ''caught in the middle.''


I can go with that.

It''s hard to argue with you guys when you have at least one reasonable sounding idead.