Enemy Combatants (Guantanamo)

[seayakin]

I decide to post this parrtly because of Darats post about the issues and thought this is a specific issue that could be discussed in relation to the campaign. Specifically, I was wondering what others think both candidates will do with Guantanamo and the "enemy combatant" status.

I'm not sure if McCain or Obama have stated specifically what they would do with the "enemy combatants." Given McCain's tenure in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp and his past criticism of the Bush administration's use of torture I thought maybe he might be interested in changing things. However, in recent years he seems to be ok with this and has even been critical of the recent Supreme Court decision granting these prisoners some rights of access to the courts (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/). It always seems to me that McCain did some sliding here towards Bush's position.

Obama intends to close the prison facility (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/25/obama-close-guantanamo/). However, what do you do with the tenants? Do you treat them as criminals and proceed holding them as prisoners of war and apply the Geneva Conventions (or create a 3rd status as George W. Bush)?

[fuelair]

I decide to post this parrtly because of Darats post about the issues and thought this is a specific issue that could be discussed in relation to the campaign. Specifically, I was wondering what others think both candidates will do with Guantanamo and the "enemy combatant" status.

I'm not sure if McCain or Obama have stated specifically what they would do with the "enemy combatants." Given McCain's tenure in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp and his past criticism of the Bush administration's use of torture I thought maybe he might be interested in changing things. However, in recent years he seems to be ok with this and has even been critical of the recent Supreme Court decision granting these prisoners some rights of access to the courts (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/). It always seems to me that McCain did some sliding here towards Bush's position.

Obama intends to close the prison facility (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/25/obama-close-guantanamo/). However, what do you do with the tenants? Do you treat them as criminals and proceed holding them as prisoners of war and apply the Geneva Conventions (or create a 3rd status as George W. Bush)?
I do agree that when it comes to war crimes George Bush has some status - 3rd will do just fine.

[Mark Felt]

Do you treat them as criminals and proceed holding them as prisoners of war and apply the Geneva Conventions (or create a 3rd status as George W. Bush)?

They count as prisoners of war if we take an actual look at the Geneva Convention, right?


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.

Well, so far so good, we can count them under the militia-wait a minute!


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:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I guess we can't count them as militia after all. Huh.


3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Well, I guess they don't qualify afterall.

We can't put them in a civilian trial, can we? None of the evidence would pass the bar; it'll all be improperly collected. Any decent defense lawyer would be able to clear out every single cell and there wouldn't be a single conviction.

What to do? I guess we need a third status.

[Random]

Sounds like a lot of the people captured in Afghanistan and Iraq would qualify under section 6.

Here's a fun question. How many captured troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were declared POWs?

[Mark Felt]

Sounds like a lot of the people captured in Afghanistan and Iraq would qualify under section 6.

Here's a fun question. How many captured troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were declared POWs?

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Do they?

[Random]

Do they?

I haven’t read every last after action report from the opening phases of the Afghanistan or Iraqi conflicts, but I would be willing to bet that quite a few of them met that description, yes.

[Mark Felt]

I haven’t read every last after action report from the opening phases of the Afghanistan or Iraqi conflicts, but I would be willing to bet that quite a few of them met that description, yes.

You don't need to read them all, you just need to provide one example. My position is easily falsifiable; find one guy at gitmo who under the geneva convention should be identified as a POW and I'll concede the point.