News Pentagon Gags Aussies: US Free Society Double-Standards

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nommos Prime (Dogon)
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived hypocrisy of the U.S. government regarding freedom of speech and due process, particularly in the context of the detention of David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay. Participants argue that while the U.S. criticizes other nations for lack of due process, it engages in similar practices, particularly under the Bush Administration. Concerns are raised about the indefinite detention of Hicks without charges, highlighting the potential for wrongful imprisonment based on personal vendettas. The conversation also touches on the limitations of free speech in the U.S., with some asserting that it is not absolute and is subject to various restrictions. The debate includes references to historical figures and philosophical concepts, questioning the integrity of American democracy and the treatment of detainees. The thread concludes with a strong sentiment against the current state of justice in the U.S., emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency in governmental actions.
  • #91
pelastration said:
When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?

I think this actually is a whole nother can o' worms. Their status as POW"S depends on whether they fit within the outlines that I listed above. They don't stop being POW's becuase of the type of war it is. The issue arises when you have a war that is not against a state, and in which an end is not neccesarily easily defined. POW's can be held until the war ceases without charges as they are not being held for criminal purposes but to prevent them from further fighting in the war. Normally once a halt to the war has been called they would be released/returned.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
selfAdjoint said:
The Supreme Court has (unwisely as I believe) extended the term "war" and the legal strictures associated with it to whatever the president asserts, rather than the constitutional meaning, which can only be declared by an act of Congress.

Uhhh..not exactly, again I suggest you look at past precedence.
 
  • #93
Thanks, kat - you picked up nicely where I left off. I had a busy weekend.

Njorl - you have a good point. I don't think there is any precident (national or international) on that though. How exactly would you go about asserting Geneva Convention protection? The Red Cross has been into see these guys. Did anyone attempt to assert POW status then? Perhaps by showing their Geneva Convention ID cards...?

I don't think many of those guys have a leg to stand on when it comes to asserting status. To clarify my position though, I would much prefer that satus hearings/trials be held quickly.
 
  • #94
More on ID cards. HERE is the complete text of the 3rd Geneva Convention (revised 1949). Article 17 states:
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
Clearly, this complicates any claim that the people at 'Gitmo should be afforded POW status.
 
  • #95
Note...I specificly asked for the source of your definition of "regular armed forces".
Regular armed forces are members of a conventional military organisation serving a command structure which may or may not be recognised by the detaining power.

Abductees
LalaLalaLala
You are familiar with something called the English lanaguage, yes? "Abductee" is a noun. The plural form is "abductees".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 113 ·
4
Replies
113
Views
16K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K