human rights for the al-queda terrorists

[foxer 0]

I really doubt these are Taliban soldiers ,When the NA let most of them go,i'am sure there is some taliban soldiers.But not normal foot soldiers,and taliban was never the afghanistan gov't.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 15 2002,13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Not accroding to the UN, or the majority of governments on the planet."

Not any longer, no. That is why I say "was". But up until this conflict, noone objected. Noone tried to stop them. Noone sent UN peacekeepers to establish a real government. They were accepted until they fucked up.<span id='postcolor'>

Tolerated, would be a better word:

"...Executive branch: on 27 September 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan Government were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement; the Islamic State of Afghanistan has no functioning government at this time, and the country remains divided among fighting factions

note: the Taliban have declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; however, the UN still recognizes the government of Burhanuddin RABBANI; the Organization of the Islamic Conference has left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy can be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions; the country is essentially divided along ethnic lines; the Taliban controls the capital of Kabul and approximately two-thirds of the country including the predominately ethnic Pashtun areas in southern Afghanistan; opposing factions have their stronghold in the ethnically diverse north..."

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html

Just the first reference I came across. About the only country in the world that recognised Taliban legitimacy was Pakistan.

[foxer 0]

So, just because some American POW's got treated badly by army X, the Americans can do the same to army Y? Thats real logical, and maybe the reason shit like WTC go down.

ww2(european pows too),korea,vietnam,gulfwar(european pows too), probably little more too.

Anyways,i'am not saying we should beat the crap outta them,but why do we have to always follow the rules when The western world POW get his ass kicked.Sure you say we have to or the world will do it,well guess what most of them do already.What about what russia did to their terrorist ? They just didn't talk to them.

[WhoCares 0]

Just some thoughts...

At the initial question about the human rights - in fact they were excactly done for these guys to protect against cruelties

independent of what they have done.

The US called the 9/11 a declaration of war of terrorists against the western world (otherwise they couldn't have asked for

support by NATO and I think it was never an Afganistan war, but only a campaign in this war), but the captives of this war

are no POWs???

All they have against the Al-queda captives is the 'membership' in an terroristical organization - not sufficient for the

electrical chair. (However, I'm sure the US intelligence services are capable of 'generating' evidences)

If those guys are no POWs but 'just' terrorists, they deserve the same treatment as murderers, thiefs, drug dealers or

white-collar criminals.

All informations gained by turture can't be used against the captives or even OBL - if they capture him just out of such

informations they have to set him free again!!!

Just some (critical) thoughts

WhoCares

[Pete 1]

who ever said afganistan was not a legal goverment is correct.

only pakistan accepted taliban rule, but they were the ruling goverment..they had a "state"..and the power to send men to war.

so i quess in the end it makes no difference, i could be wrong tho...international legal rights is not exactly my strong side.

and about human rights...it is for humans, all humans...and nobody is allowed to break them.

if the al-gueda are pows or not...i quess that they might be found legally as pows easier than just simple prisoners...mmmm

either way, no matter what they are "classed" as..torture and/or denial of human rights is still not acceptable.

[Longinius 1]

To be honest, I don't really care what other nations and organisations say NOW, after it all went down. Hinesight is 20/20. Fact is, before WTC, noone really tried to do anything about the Taliban. That to me is accepting something.

[Stag 0]

There is no evidence that the prisoner's human rights are being violated; that's not the issue. They are simply not being treated as prisoners of war.

A prisoner of war can be expected to be repatriated once "hostilities" cease; Who wants to bet that at least some of these animals would just go back to what they were doing before the invasion?

Lock them away as the criminals they are, or kill them.

Sorted.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 15 2002,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To be honest, I don't really care what other nations and organisations say NOW, after it all went down. Hinesight is 20/20. Fact is, before WTC, noone really tried to do anything about the Taliban. That to me is accepting something.<span id='postcolor'>

The only thing accepted is that invading a country like Afghanistan is usually more trouble than it's worth.

[silent wings 0]

SHOOT ALL THE AL QUEDA TERRORISTS.

[Guest]

Didn't president bush say that if you help terrorists, you are a terrorist? If you shelter terrorists, you are a terrorist state? The taliban are terrorists.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @ Jan. 15 2002,18:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didn't president bush say that if you help terrorists, you are a terrorist?  If you shelter terrorists, you are a terrorist state?  The taliban are terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

he said so, so what?

his words are not "international law"...his words change nothing, it only reflects the american view on the whole thing....did you know that the kosovo-albanians you aided were seen as terrorists by the serbs, even today you could easily label them as terrorists.

usa supports/supported them, so usa is a terrorist nation?

usa even supported terrorism a'la contras not too long ago, among other things....with the words of the not-so-clever bush america is a terrorist nation now.

comments?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Jan. 15 2002,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">his words are not "international law"...his words change nothing, it only reflects the american view on the whole thing....did you know that the kosovo-albanians you aided were seen as terrorists by the serbs, even today you could easily label them as terrorists.

usa supports/supported them, so usa is a terrorist nation?

usa even supported terrorism a'la contras not too long ago, among other things....with the words of the not-so-clever bush america is a terrorist nation now.

comments?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it's the american view. America is taking care of the terrorists. America drew a line and you were either with us or against us. If you need an international referrendum to fight back after being attacked, then you would not be the most powerful nation in the world, now would you?

The US may have supported the mujahadin (sp?) in the past, but they were given a chance to be on our side this time and they spat in our faces, and they sided with the enemy.

The US does NOT support the Taliban, so I don't know why you say the usa is a terrorist nation.

Uh, again, the contras were in the past, not the present, so I don't see how that a valid argument.

[KingBeast 0]

BBC News Article

interesting read.

"There have been allegations that detainees were shackled, drugged and hooded as they were flown to Cuba, although the US says they are being treated "very humanely." "

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 15 2002,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBC News Article

interesting read.

"There have been allegations that detainees were shackled, drugged and hooded as they were flown to Cuba, although the US says they are being treated "very humanely." "<span id='postcolor'>

Finally, a short article to read!

Interesting how people forget the mazar-e-shariff (sp?) incident. It started with one prisoner jumping on the cia interrogatting him and beating the agent to death while the others rioted.

Actually, the cell/showers/food described sounds a lot better than living in a cave with smelly bearded men. They probably never ate this well, if how us inmates are treated can be used as a guage.

[el Gringo Loco 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 15 2002,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBC News Article

interesting read.

"There have been allegations that detainees were shackled, drugged and hooded as they were flown to Cuba, although the US says they are being treated "very humanely." "<span id='postcolor'>

They do almost the same thing they do to my niece who is in a mental institution. But I already wrote about her in a different thread.

I think they are being treated humane enough the al-queda criminals. More humane than the US treats some of its own inmates. Like executing mentally handicapped people, who can't possibly be held responsible for the deeds they've done.

[Wobble 1]

Like executing mentally handicapped people, who can't possibly be held responsible for the deeds they've done.

that has happened.. what once or twice?? I cant think of a single incident where someone who has been proven 'mentally' handicapped has been put to death..

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Jan. 15 2002,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like executing mentally handicapped people, who can't possibly be held responsible for the deeds they've done.

that has happened.. what once or twice??  I cant think of a single incident where someone who has been proven 'mentally' handicapped has been put to death..<span id='postcolor'>

wasnt there a guy with a IQ of 70 just executed?

maybe not the same thing?

personally, im against death penalties..no matter if the prisoner is sane or insane, life in prison is better as it gives a chance to a innocent to get out after it has been found that he was not quilty.

death is final....and it really makes no differnece if the prisoner (quilty) is in jail for life of buried, as long he is not free to repeat his crime.

but since innocents get convicted too by "mistake" sometimes...death penalty should not exist.

just my point of view.

[Guest]

I am pro-death penalty. It costs way too much to keep someone for life, especially when they get older. The costs are astronomical. Even putting someone to death is pretty expensive. China has the death penalty part right, I think: Firing squad, and charge the family for the bullets. China has the justice part wrong, though.

[Wobble 1]

Im sort of with you pete.. I only approce of it in the case of REPETE violent offenders.. I.e. someone who has commited murder/rape once then does it again.. that way your sure that:

A: pretty good chance ya got the right guy..

B: he abviousley cannot be reformed.

[KingBeast 0]

Sorry was just browsing through the BBC news archives and came across this. Made me feel rather ill.

17 April 2001

A bed within a death chamber

"An internet company says Americans should have the right to watch the Oklahoma bomber die. Entertainment Network Incorporated wanted to broadcast the execution live on the internet on a pay-per-view basis."

[madmike 0]

Thats pretty rude making money out of death.

[Wobble 1]

An internet company says Americans should have the right to watch the Oklahoma bomber die. Entertainment Network Incorporated wanted to broadcast the execution live on the internet on a pay-per-view basis."

sounds good to me.. but only if if the way he is executed involves ants and honey..

that bastard deserves NO.. NONE ZIP ZILCH respect or pity from anyone.. screw his views and screw him... no matter what your beliefs there is no justification in murdering that many men women and children.

at lest the Ql-Queda swine were brave enough to give their life for their 'conviction' (dillusion)..  that sack of shit wanted to get away scott free..  all terrorists are cowards.. as terrorism is a cowardly act.. but that moron took it to a whole new level..

Thats pretty rude making money out of death.

well he got his kicks out of killing innocent people, seems fair that innocent people could get their kicks by seeing justace done...

it is kinda.. wierd though.

[KingBeast 0]

Well i think its sick for anyone to want to watch a man be killed live on television. Sick enough to warant needing help, no matter who the guy getting executed was.

That kind of thing might have been all the rage in the middle ages but it has no place in todays society.

[Wobble 1]

Well i think its sick for anyone to want to watch a man be killed live on television well unless you are very sick person you wouldent watch it just to 'watch a man be killed' but for closure.. what he did effected LOTS of people in a very big way, and seeing justace done oftin helps people 'move along' in life..

I dont think I would watch it though..

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Jan. 13 2002,04:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">two wrongs don't make a right and all that<span id='postcolor'>

Love saying this

- and another - make a +