> That was as an answer to your original description of Guantanamo as of an equal shocking standard as the mass murders of Jews/Gypsies in WW II.
> I would, without doing a Devil's Advocate, describe that position as lacking a sense of proportions.
I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time.
> It is not a war in Afghanistan? Please inform the media.
From the wikipedia article on the 'war' in Afghanistan:
"The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). There is some debate as to whether UNSC authorization was required, centered around the question of whether the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or an act of aggression.[42]
The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[43] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners"
So, to call it war is not clear cut. A war is something that is declared between nation states and the conflict in Afghanistan misses quite a few of the pre-requisites.
For the people in the region the difference is much less important, but in international law such things do matter.
> But I just did a Devil's Advocate argument that the prisoners aren't treated worse than normal US' prisoners (which is horrible, but still much better than most any 3rd world prison system).
So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ?
> I thought the Red Cross had access to Guantanamo?
Apparently they were allowed to visit off-and-on during the Bush years, and then restricted in all kinds of ways, since Obama came to power this has changed but it is unclear whether they now have full access to the facility, I can't find any evidence of that.
I'm not American -- don't just assume people's nationality because you don't like their arguments.
>>I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time.
See the note above, re that all countries I know of with terror problems thread on the limits of human rights.
>>The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers,
Afghanistan is a conflict against organized units which as standard behavior do terror attacks against civilians and misuse civilian dress.
Anyway, it is continuing military operations since the invasion 2001, where the term is used in the standard press.
I don't have a problem with the Afghan invasion -- and neither do neutral countries like Sweden which send soldiers there.
If you harbor terrorists which attack other countries' civilians, you might get invaded. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing -- it is an incentive for countries to not destabilize other countries.
>>So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ?
Check spr.org. How popular do you think these people would be, if put in US prisons?
Second, I do honestly think the judgment on US here is harsher than e.g. the British and their handling of IRA, etc.
Third, desecrating religious objects isn't illegal in civilized countries. (And is it really documented?)
Fourth, lots of the stories coming from Guantanamo prisoners are certainly made up. There are innocent people incarcerated (all prisons have that). The guilty are in the terror business -- which is more or less the propaganda business.
I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time.
> It is not a war in Afghanistan? Please inform the media.
From the wikipedia article on the 'war' in Afghanistan:
"The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). There is some debate as to whether UNSC authorization was required, centered around the question of whether the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or an act of aggression.[42]
The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[43] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners"
And:
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79295
So, to call it war is not clear cut. A war is something that is declared between nation states and the conflict in Afghanistan misses quite a few of the pre-requisites.
For the people in the region the difference is much less important, but in international law such things do matter.
> But I just did a Devil's Advocate argument that the prisoners aren't treated worse than normal US' prisoners (which is horrible, but still much better than most any 3rd world prison system).
So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ?
> I thought the Red Cross had access to Guantanamo?
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/30/letter-obama-asking-ac...
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/leaked-guant%C...
Apparently they were allowed to visit off-and-on during the Bush years, and then restricted in all kinds of ways, since Obama came to power this has changed but it is unclear whether they now have full access to the facility, I can't find any evidence of that.