Talk:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:40, 18 August 2005

Revision as of 17:50, 18 August 2005

Line 179:

:::Don't you mean self-''executing'' treaties? Or is that more like shooting oneself in the foot? :) --[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Excuse me, but I actually do know a few things about law. I may not be an attorney, but I am going to be entering the law buisness. According to your user page, you aren't an attorney either, so lets leave field of occupation out of this, okay? Now, back to the topic. Actually, the Geneva Conventions are self-''executing'' treaties, in that the treaties declare the rights of people during war time. In fact, that is one of the things John Roberston talked about in his decision. The ruling for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld only stated that the treaties are not self-executing in that they could not be upheld by US courts. Regardless of whether the treaties can be upheld by US courts, the legal status of under international law is still relevant. And, by the way, I am an American and I love this country. You have no buisness telling me or anyone else that we are only trying to criticize America. I am trying to accurately inform people about the legal status of detainees under the law. Also, when you say ''"If you want to write about the legal status of the detainees--which is way beyond the original topic..."'' I can't help but wonder what you think is in the scope of the "Legal Status" section. ([[User:68.12.128.91|68.12.128.91]] 10:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

:::::Dear 68.12.128.91: The article is about GUANTANAMO BAY--a geographical ___location. It is as if you write an article about Japan and you dedicate five paragraphs to how the Japanese mistreated Allied prisoners during WWII. And the whole article is merely seven paragraphs long. Yes the legal status of detainees at Gitmo is way, way beyond the logical terms of the topic of the geographical ___location and topography of Guantanamo Bay--A BODY OF WATER!!!-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 17:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Let’s put this way, the opinions of US courts on the matter are not binding to the international community. Of course they are important opinions that need to be in the article, but they are not the only opinions to be included. If we do so, the article will be a one side article about this topic. [[User:193.23.63.130|193.23.63.130]]