Posted on 01/12/2006 11:26:24 AM PST by Michael81Dus
Germany's new Chancellor Angela Merkel, due for a warm welcome in the Bush White House tomorrow, represents a new political phenomenon in her country. Her government embraces her conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) with their Bavarian allies in the Christian Social Union, and the Social Democrats, the first time such lineup in 37 years.
It is quite unlike its predecessor, the Red/Green coalition of 1998-2005, in which the ranks were filled with "sixty-eighters,"offspring of the 1968 anti-Vietnam War and anti-establishment student revolt, in whose new-leftist hearts dislike and distrust of America lingered.
Germany's relations with Washington have nearly always been better with CDU-run governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
He's just repeating media spin, chapter and verse.
Please google "CIA prisons Europe", or "Guantanamo Bay". Do or do not all inmates know when they´ll be tried? If not, are those who won´t be tried POW due to the armed conflict in Southern Afghanistan? Personally, I have nothing against the "water torture" that is used on the terrorists to get informations. In fact, it would be double standard if I were against it - because German intel uses the knowledge you get from them. But allowing authorities to keep people in prisons without calling a judge is simply unbearable. Who guarantees you that the suspicions are sufficient?
Nope. You have to be a member of a recognized military organization ENGAGED IN LAWFUL combat operations. Terrorism is NOT a lawful act of war by ANYONE's definition.
Civilian prisons for terrorists, or at least trials for the Gitmo inmates that are not POW?
So maybe we should drop them off in your neighborhood so they can threaten yoour family. Would that work for you? The truth is, no matter where they are let out, they will return to terrorizing. Are you willing to put your money (and your life) where your mouth is on that?? What is the way that you, in your infinite wisdom, would deal with this??
One must differentiate. Some are POW (e.g. several Taliban), some are not.
They get legal representation and are tried by a military tribunal. They have NO right to access to the US Civil courts. Spies and saboteurs during WW 1 and 2 were tried by Military Tribunal. It is an accepted point of International Law.
Google only brings up results that are left-biased.
And, frankly, "CIA prisons" are none of our or your business.
Anything we can do to defeat terrorism is bearable to me.
The Taliban are NOT POW -- they are terrorists.
Art. 2 GC III
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
...
I think the Taliban can be considered as a militia.
Guantanamo is in a sort of legal never-never land with respect both to U.S. law and to such international law to which the U.S. subscribes. Where Michael and I disagree is the legal status of the internees. I am inclined to hold that those taken on a field of battle bearing arms and not in uniform are entitled to no legal protection whatever. We should and are reviewing their status on an ongoing basis and have released those for whom the evidence in hand suggested a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Where we do not disagree is that the existence of the detention facility is a major PR advantage for leftists who hate the United States, especially in Europe, and that it has detracted from our image there, justly or not. I do not feel that public relations (i.e. propaganda) should be allowed to be the overweening consideration in keeping that facility active, however. Until such time as state-supported terrorists have a legal definition and act in accordance with the laws they invoke to protect them, they should not be accorded the protection of those laws. Just my $0.02.
This bears repeating!
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Especially the last one.
You're right...the terrorists don't even care when an "infidel" (their term--not mine) supports them. They kill all people who disagree with their religion no matter if they support them or not. To them we are animals. It is part of their creed. When in truth, they are the animals for their wanton killing of innocents.
If German citizens are kidnapped by the CIA and kept in its prisons, it surely is one of my businesses.
Well, history taught me that I should not allow my government to do "anything to defeat terrorism". There are certain rights (and the right to be tried by a fair judge/jury is one of them, among many others) I would never give up. I´m wondering that you, as an American, say that. Usually it´s you having a healthy distrust against your government (refusal of a national ID, etc). Now, it´s us.
I´m ok with methods to get informations that mean no threat to the life or body of the suspect/criminal. That includes the water boarding. But that´s also the bottom line. Does anything mean the killing by order of an CIA agent? I know, it´s not going to happen now, but what if there´s another September 11 going to take happen? What would you do then? My fear is, that you have no bottom line.
Like the speedy trial of Milosevic at the Hague? It's no where near a fair trial, it's a political sham. I can understand why Bush wants no part of it, and why the EU signs on to it shows how manipulative self interest can be.
Unlike Europe, we are more worried about the victims of terrorism rather then the perpetrators. Simply amazes me how callously indifferent all Europe is to the barbaric ACTIONS of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qeda et al. compared to how desperately WORRIED they are about the prisoners in Gitmo. Frankly these "moral reservations" stink to me. MORE concern about the actions of the terrorists, a WHOLE lot less worry about USA Europe. If Europe was as active AGAINST terrorists and they are ON THEIR behalf, we might be willing to listen to Europe's preachings. Germany finds Gitmo so offensive, offer to take the Gitmo prisoners off our hands. Once they are in YOUR custody YOU can treat them as you wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.