US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

[Jon_in_london]

The US military has admitted that children aged 16 years and younger are among the detainees being interrogated at its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a US military spokesperson, yesterday said all the teenagers being held were "captured as active combatants against US forces", and described them as "enemy combatants".

"That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights," said an Amnesty International spokesman, Alistair Hodgett.






Shame on US.

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=13500

[corplinx]

Illegal combatants are not covered by the geneva POW status. I like how you try to lump two things in.

You could have just said "US violates human rights of teenagers" but instead you threw in the Geneva thing. Not sure why you would use this tactic. I think we can have a reasonable debate about teenage detainees without having to rehash the whole "illegal combatant" thing.

[Skeptical Greg]

Exactly which provisions of the Geneva Convention are being violated?



I can see the usual PC people with their panties in a wad about this. I'm sure it's the same people who check the age of all suicide bombers who board the bus with them.

[Agammamon]

I don't believe the Geneva Conventions specify a minimum age for either soldiers or POW's. If they did I'm pretty sure the Sov's and Nazi's and French and Pole's and Chzeck's have been in violation.

[Clancie]

The whole detainee policy is a disgrace anyway. No charges? No right to counsel? In 21st century America, its shocking.

This Bush/Ashcroft policy will undoubtedly go down in the history books right alongside Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts as an example of the impact of political hysteria on civil liberties.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancy
The whole detainee policy is a disgrace anyway. No charges? No right to counsel? In 21st century America, its shocking.

This Bush/Ashcroft policy will undoubtedly go down in the history books right alongside Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts as an example of the impact of political hysteria on civil liberties.

I say we take their cover-alls away, wrap a towel around them and drop them back in the desert.
I would even give them a litre of Evian and a case of MRE's.

What do you think?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by corplinx
Illegal combatants are not covered by the geneva POW status.

That's because in international law there is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant" as the US calls those people. The term was invented by the US to have a pretext to ignore international law.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What do you think?

I think that people like you would have made a great career in 1930's Germany. Or in any other place or period were laws and human rights were considered things to play with.

[Fade]

So if a country decides to use ten year olds with semi-automatic weapons, we need to just ignore them?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Fade
So if a country decides to use ten year olds with semi-automatic weapons, we need to just ignore them?

Apparently. I mean, really, if a fifteen year-old is shooting at you with an automatic weapon, do you just write it off as a youthful indescretion?

There is legal precedence for trying minors as adults for really awful crimes, no surprise there.

[iain]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Apparently. I mean, really, if a fifteen year-old is shooting at you with an automatic weapon, do you just write it off as a youthful indescretion?

There is legal precedence for trying minors as adults for really awful crimes, no surprise there. So you see no middle ground between letting off the fifteen year old completely and holding them without access to legal counsel, charges etc.? Funny, because there is lots of middle ground. Things like due process, for example.

[Troll]

Originally posted by armageddonman


That's because in international law there is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant" as the US calls those people. The term was invented by the US to have a pretext to ignore international law.

Not to ignore international law, but to cover an area which international law has failed to look into. If I kill a Frenchman I am simply a murderer. If I gather people together and decide to kill all frenchmen, I am not doing so as a warrior/representative of my nation but as a terrorist freak that is unable to declare, through the international community, war on a country.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Troll
Not to ignore international law, but to cover an area which international law has failed to look into.

If the US felt that this part of international law should be changed why haven't they tried to change it accordingly? How is it possible that the US is able to detain anyone for an unlimited period of time, without legal counsel or charge? Tha's a practice, countries like China or Noth Korea are usually known for. Regardless of the justification, it's against any legal standard that should apply to anyone.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by iain
So you see no middle ground between letting off the fifteen year old completely and holding them without access to legal counsel, charges etc.? Funny, because there is lots of middle ground. Things like due process, for example.

The kids aren't entitled to any more due process than the adults we're holding. The way we are handling this is rather disgraceful but if the kid wants to pick up a weapon and play with the big boys he's got to play by the big boy rules.

[iain]

Originally posted by Agammamon


The kids aren't entitled to any more due process than the adults we're holding. The way we are handling this is rather disgraceful but if the kid wants to pick up a weapon and play with the big boys he's got to play by the big boy rules. Agammamon,

That's not the point I was making at all. Some posters were implying that keeping children in this way was justified because the alternative was to do nothing at all.

Fade wrote So if a country decides to use ten year olds with semi-automatic weapons, we need to just ignore them?
EvilYeti wrote if a fifteen year-old is shooting at you with an automatic weapon, do you just write it off as a youthful indescretion? My point is that it is not a black and white issue : either we lock them up in this way or we do nothing at all. There is the whole range of actions inbetween which can be taken.

The suggestion from Fade and EvilYeti that anyone is proposing just letting the children go is silly.

Edited to add and don't you think that children are more likely to be forced into doing this than adults? Do you really think that children who work in sweatshops have a choice? Or the children in Africa who are threatened with death unless they fight for some group or other? Why do you assume that these children are fighting (if they were fighting) of their own free will.

[crackmonkey]

So... apparently, then, you're not against the idea of punitive action against these kids, but merely the method implemented. Okay.. what do you propose?

[iain]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
So... apparently, then, you're not against the idea of punitive action against these kids, but merely the method implemented. Okay.. what do you propose? I have no problem at all with punitive action against the children and I haven't seen any suggestion that anyone else has either.

I propose that they are treated according to International and US law, either as criminals or POWs and that the children are treated appropriately for their age, again according to International and US law.

[Skeptical Greg]

Come on... Drop the ' Children ' crap..:rolleyes:

[Clancie]

I have no problem at all with punitive action against the children and I haven't seen any suggestion that anyone else has either.

I am. I'm against the whole policy. Its a lie to not classify them as POW's, just for the purpose of avoiding the Geneva Conventions.

These people need to be charged with something. ''
They need to have access to legal counsel.
They need to be humanely housed.
They need to have the presumption of innocence.

That goes for adult or child, imo. This policy will haunt Americans for years and years to come (as will the Ashcroft policy of detentions of immigrants without charges, without counsel, without presumption of innocence).

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Troll

Not to ignore international law, but to cover an area which international law has failed to look into.

Wow, reading threads like this one, you can really hear the mid-atlantic rift cracking as it widens...:(

So, if a person/state comes to the conclusion that the laws of the state/international community he/she/it is a member of have failed to look into a specific matter, he/she/it can simply ammend those laws on his/her/its own?

Evil minded persons would argue that in such a case you don't need any laws in the first place. :rolleyes:

By the way: were the afghans and/or arab volunteers who fought the Soviets in the 80s legal or illegal combatants (they wore no uniform, remember?).

Convention (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=convention):
...
2. An agreement between states, sides, or military forces, especially an international agreement dealing with a specific subject, such as the treatment of prisoners of war.
...

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by iain
I propose that they are treated according to International and US law, either as criminals or POWs and that the children are treated appropriately for their age, again according to International and US law.
There is a real question here as to whether, under international law, a 15- or 16-year-old is necessarily a child. This is already being discussed somewhat in the other thread on this issue.

The Geneva Conventions certainly don't supply any definition of "child". The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates 17 and under, unless the person has reached a lower age of majority under applicable law (arguably the law of the person's home jurisdiction). I don't know what the customary age of majority in Afghanistan is, but I'd be rather surprised if it were above 16 for males, and not very surprised if it were a little lower.

These may not be children at all, legally speaking.

[iain]

Perhaps I should amend my statement to

I propose that they are treated according to International and US law, either as criminals or POWs and are treated appropriately for their age, again according to International and US law.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
This Bush/Ashcroft policy will undoubtedly go down in the history books right alongside Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts as an example of the impact of political hysteria on civil liberties. Considering that the prisoners are treated better than the guards and that the prisoners themselves have said that they have been treated in a human way and when you contrast that with the treatment of prisoners in nearly all other Muslim countries (*dismemberment, torture, disfigurement, murder, etc.) then I seriously doubt that.

* See Iran/Iraq war, USSR/Afghanistan war, etc.

[Clancie]

originally posted by RandFan
Considering that the prisoners are treated better than the guards and that the prisoners themselves have said that they have been treated in a human way
Not from what I've read. Source?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancy

Not from what I've read.

Source?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
This policy will haunt Americans for years and years to come (as will the Ashcroft policy of detentions of immigrants without charges, without counsel, without presumption of innocence). Again, considering the treatment of siezed combatants throughout the world it is hard to imagine how this would "haunt" Americans. That is not say that the actions are correct. I am very interested in this discussion and I would like to know more on the legal and moral considerations. It certainly raises a red flag in my mind.

[CWL]

Originally posted by corplinx
Illegal combatants are not covered by the geneva POW status. I like how you try to lump two things in.

What the heck are "illegal combatants" anyway and why doesn't the rule of law apply to them?

Can any state just invent new terms within international law and keep people imprisoned without explaining to them what crimes they are accused of and denying them access to effective remedies by categorizing them according to such new terms?

Just wondering.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by RandFan
Considering that the prisoners are treated better than the guards and that the prisoners themselves have said that they have been treated in a human way and when you contrast that with the treatment of prisoners in nearly all other Muslim countries (*dismemberment, torture, disfigurement, murder, etc.) then I seriously doubt that.
I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on."Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Not from what I've read. Source? I saw a news report where prisoners were transfered to Afghanastan and being held in a jail. They were questioned by reporters and they told how their lives were better at guantanamo than when the were fighters for the Taliban. They got excelent health care and were fed regurly. Some of the reporters seemed agitated that the prisoners were not complaining about abuse. In fact the prisoners were complaining about their treatment in Afghanastand and were demanding to be released or sent back to Guantanamo.

I also remember a news report about a guard who was filling suit because the prisoners recieved better treatment. I will try and find the references.

Torturing the truth about Guantanamo (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20020128.shtml)

Don't take my word for it. A spokesman for Human Rights Watch, one of the organizations protesting the conditions in Guantanamo, expresses no objection to the devices used to control the inmates during transport. Its concern is the type of cells in which the inmates will be held. Why? Because, with their chain-link sides, "they offer scant shelter from wind and rain."

But putting someone in open-air housing on a tropical Caribbean island during January somehow fails to bring to mind the Spanish Inquisition. (Sunday's forecast for Havana: partly cloudy, with a high of 86 degrees and a low of 66.) Americans have been known to pay handsome sums to undergo such agony. Even Human Rights Watch notes that these are merely temporary quarters, and that the Defense Department is already building permanent facilities with those all-important walls as well as roofs.

Likewise, the alleged "sensory deprivation" and "unnecessary restraint" that outraged Amnesty International were of no particular concern to the International Committee of the Red Cross. It doesn't claim these violated the Geneva Convention. The violation, in its view, was -- I'm not making this up -- the photo itself, which supposedly flouted the rule against making a public spectacle of captives.

There you have it: The United States opens a window on its alleged inhumanity, and it gets blamed for both the alleged inhumanity and for its openness.

But the human-rights watchdogs don't even agree on that. Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch says, "I wouldn't say it's a violation. You can't parade prisoners before jeering crowds, or release humiliating photos, or make them objects of scorn." Demeaning the prisoners was obviously not the purpose in this instance.

It's not clear by any means that the U.S. has any obligation to follow every jot and tittle of the Geneva Convention, which was not written to uphold the rights of people who fly civilian airliners into office buildings. To qualify for the protections of that treaty, combatants have to follow basic rules of war, like wearing uniforms, carrying your arms openly, and respecting the rules of war. Al Qaeda's members obviously don't qualify, and even Taliban soldiers may not.

If a state or nation refuses to sign the Geneva Convention and refuses to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention then what is the advantage of giving those who violate the Geneva Convention the protections of the Convention?

In fact, they are unlawful combatants. Whether they are al Qaeda or Taliban, they belong to organizations that don't respect the laws of war, and flunk the other tests for a legitimate army (wearing uniforms, having a discernible chain of command, etc.).

[RandFan]

Right Country, Wrong Camp (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock012502.shtml)

They eat Islamically correct meals and study free copies of the Koran. Muslim prayers flow from camp loud speakers. They receive bug spray to prevent mosquito bites. Too bad one Army guard had no terrorist repellent to keep a prisoner from biting him January 19. The Pentagon says one detainee consistently threatens to kill American soldiers while another has spat on two camp personnel.

The U.S. supposedly abuses these suspects by housing them in open-air shelters. With January 24 temperatures spanning 68 to 82 degrees, this is no hardship. The Red Cross complains that photographing shackled inmates humiliates them. But if the Pentagon shielded them from cameras, it would be slammed for concealing prisoners from the eyes of the world.

A Lesson in Americanism (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-long011802.shtml)

We respect and provide for the most basic needs of these men. Not only that, we are also respecting their culture and religion. Our Taliban prisoners receive two towels, one for bathing and one for use in prayers. They receive three culturally appropriate meals each day. They have daily opportunities to shower, exercise and receive medical attention. And they are not generally photographed because, of all things, it is considered embarrassing to some of them.

Think about it: These are followers-to-the-death of Osama bin Laden, the man who said, "Our terrorism is a good accepted terrorism because it's against America." We're taking steps to prevent his disciples not only from being hungry or cold, but also from being… embarrassed.

We don't have to do any of this, of course. When a reporter asked Secretary Rumsfeld how he would expect American soldiers to be treated if captured by the Taliban, he said, "I'd expect they'd have just been shot summarily, as happened with any number of people." There has not been much cry from the human-rights community about that because no one expects anything better from al Qaeda.

[Clancie]

Originally posted by RandFan
If a state or nation refuses to sign the Geneva Convention and refuses to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention then what is the advantage of giving those who violate the Geneva Convention the protections of the Convention?
"?"
The U.S. and Afghanistan both signed the Geneva Conventions.

And isn't that the rationale behind the Bush policy that applies some protections to Taliban, but not to Al-Quaida?

(And, of course, there are over 30 other nationalities being held at Guantanamo, as well).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
The U.S. and Afghanistan both signed the Geneva Conventions. Well of course the US signed the Geneva Convention. Did the Taliban government sign the Geneva Convention?

Did the Taliban or Al-Qaeda adhere to the Geneva Convention?

(And, of course, there are over 30 other nationalities being held at Guantanamo, as well). Did those individuals violate the Geneva Convention?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL


Can any state just invent new terms within international law and keep people imprisoned without explaining to them what crimes they are accused of and denying them access to effective remedies by categorizing them according to such new terms?

Just wondering.

If a state has the will to do so, and the means to enforce a decision, yes. Now what?

Perhaps you and other like-minded individuals should form a nation-state, raise an army, and declare war on the US. (Try terrorism first, although we may be getting a handle on how to deal with that too.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on." Thanks ceo_esq.

I think such a statement needs to be addressed by those who claim that the detainees are being misstreated.

In any event I am still a bit concerned about the detainees not being charged or having leagal assistance. I would like some more information on this if anyone has it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by CWL


What the heck are "illegal combatants" anyway and why doesn't the rule of law apply to them?



Apparently, "illegal combatants" are people (US citizens or not) that are fighting against the US. In this case, those "combatants" have been taken prisoner in a conflict that the US is calling a "war."

I hope this clears things up (although it doesn't for me).

[RandFan]

CWL
What the heck are "illegal combatants" anyway and why doesn't the rule of law apply to them?

pgwenthold
Apparently, "illegal combatants" are people (US citizens or not) that are fighting against the US. In this case, those "combatants" have been taken prisoner in a conflict that the US is calling a "war." Have you ever played a game in which your opponent refused to follow the rules but demanded that you follow them?

To have any meaning the convention must be followed by all who agree to the rules. As I understand, those that don't follow the rules aren't guaranteed all of its protections. This does not mean that we can do anything we want to these detainees.

To qualify for the protections of that treaty, combatants have to follow basic rules of war, like wearing uniforms, carrying your arms openly, and respecting the rules of war. Al Qaeda's members obviously don't qualify, and even Taliban soldiers may not. (link above)

In truth we have treated the detainees in a humane manner (see my last post above)

[Advocate]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Apparently, "illegal combatants" are people (US citizens or not) that are fighting against the US. In this case, those "combatants" have been taken prisoner in a conflict that the US is calling a "war."

I hope this clears things up (although it doesn't for me).

Actually the problem is that, as far as I know, these people do not fit the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in the Geneva Conventions. "Illegal combatants" is a name created to refer to those persons captured who were involved in the combat but who do not fit the legal definition of POW. I think it was simpler than calling them "captured combatants who do not fall under the legal definition of prisoner of war."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Advocate


Actually the problem is that, as far as I know, these people do not fit the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in the Geneva Conventions. "Illegal combatants" is a name created to refer to those persons captured who were involved in the combat but who do not fit the legal definition of POW. I think it was simpler than calling them "captured combatants who do not fall under the legal definition of prisoner of war."

If they are acting "illegally," then they should be treated as criminals? (when they say "illegal" combatants, by whose laws are they illegal? US or international?")

If they are in violation of US laws, then they should be treated as US criminals. If they are violating international law, then international law applies. How many have been given access to legal representation (shoot, they didn't even give legal representation to a US citizen they captured, even after he requested it).

Did they actually "combat" the US before the US attacked Afghanistan? If not, then how can the fact they fought back be considered "illegal." If they fought the US before we attacked, then they are either terrorist or terrorist conspiratorists.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Advocate


Actually the problem is that, as far as I know, these people do not fit the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in the Geneva Conventions. "Illegal combatants" is a name created to refer to those persons captured who were involved in the combat but who do not fit the legal definition of POW. I think it was simpler than calling them "captured combatants who do not fall under the legal definition of prisoner of war."

Actually, a simpler question might be: How can they be called "combatants" if we aren't at war? Calling them "combatants" indicates combate is occuring, regardless of whether it was declared against a country or not. The Geneva convention doesn't consider military conflict to be war?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
If they are acting "illegally," then they should be treated as criminals? (when they say "illegal" combatants, by whose laws are they illegal? US or international?")

If they are in violation of US laws, then they should be treated as US criminals. If they are violating international law, then international law applies. How many have been given access to legal representation (shoot, they didn't even give legal representation to a US citizen they captured, even after he requested it).

Did they actually "combat" the US before the US attacked Afghanistan? If not, then how can the fact they fought back be considered "illegal." If they fought the US before we attacked, then they are either terrorist or terrorist conspiratorists. You are creating IMO a false dichotomy. There is reason to treat these detainees similar to POWs. On the other hand their is reason to treat them as criminals. The problem is that neither distinction adequately deals with the unique problems of combatants acting in an illegal manner.

Can you show any precedent to support the idea that they must be treated specifically as POWs or criminals? If they had commited specific war crimes then I can see how they would be war criminals. But not fighting under the rules of the Geneva Convention in my mind has not been dealt with in the past.

What we need is a legal expert versed in this area. Any help would be apreciated.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The Geneva convention doesn't consider military conflict to be war? That is interesting. Can you give me some backup or additional resources?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Did they actually "combat" the US before the US attacked Afghanistan? If not, then how can the fact they fought back be considered "illegal." If they fought the US before we attacked, then they are either terrorist or terrorist conspiratorists.

The whole status thing of the Guatanimo prisoners is a big mess. (I do think the U.S. is following the right course of action however.)

My reasoning over this is as follows:

- Al Quaeda was the terrorist group which attacked the US. However, not all al Quaeda members were involved in 9/11 (or the Cole incident, etc.) So, they can't all be charged with 'attacking the US.)
- The Taliban, by offering 'protection' for al Quaeda, basically put itself at war with the US. (By supporting bin Laden, they were engaged in war 'by proxy'.)
- The Taliban and al Quaeda were very closely linked, with the Taliban requiring al Quaeda support to remain in power, and al Quaeda requiring Taliban support to provide them with a place to operate from.
- Taliban or al Quaeda members were captured during a 'war'. As I mentioned before, they wouldn't necessarily be 'criminals', because for the most part, there were no particular charges to be made against many members individually. On the other hand, they can't be released because they supported a government and/or organization which, for the most part, the U.S. is at war against/

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
That is interesting. Can you give me some backup or additional resources?

I don't have any, that's why I put a "?" at the end of the sentance.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

- Taliban or al Quaeda members were captured during a 'war'. As I mentioned before, they wouldn't necessarily be 'criminals', because for the most part, there were no particular charges to be made against many members individually. On the other hand, they can't be released because they supported a government and/or organization which, for the most part, the U.S. is at war against/

So then why aren't they considered prisoners of war?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Nitpick


Wow, reading threads like this one, you can really hear the mid-atlantic rift cracking as it widens...:(

So, if a person/state comes to the conclusion that the laws of the state/international community he/she/it is a member of have failed to look into a specific matter, he/she/it can simply ammend those laws on his/her/its own?

Evil minded persons would argue that in such a case you don't need any laws in the first place. :rolleyes:

By the way: were the afghans and/or arab volunteers who fought the Soviets in the 80s legal or illegal combatants (they wore no uniform, remember?).

Convention (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=convention):
...
2. An agreement between states, sides, or military forces, especially an international agreement dealing with a specific subject, such as the treatment of prisoners of war.
...

They wore no uniforms but they represented a country. Al Queda doesn't represent any country. It would be the same if any of the American militia groups started sneaking into Canada and blowing up hockey stick factories. They don't represent the states as a whole and as such there are no set guidelines in how to deal with them according to international law. If Canada wanted to hold them until they could figure out what to do with them then I wouldn't complain considering the alternative is to free them and allow them the chance to continue their bombings.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are creating IMO a false dichotomy. There is reason to treat these detainees similar to POWs. On the other hand their is reason to treat them as criminals. The problem is that neither distinction adequately deals with the unique problems of combatants acting in an illegal manner.

I really don't know what you mean by "acting in an illegal manner." What did they do that was illegal? They were part of an organization that the _US_ considers to be illegal. Thus, they violated US law. Other than that, they probably fought back when the US attacked, but I have a hard time imagining this to be illegal.



Can you show any precedent to support the idea that they must be treated specifically as POWs or criminals?


How about the fact that there has to be a reason to capture them? We are fighting them in combat, or they have done something wrong that we feel needs to addressed. If it is the former, they are POW. If the latter, they are accused criminals and are subject to the rights of accused criminals.


If they had commited specific war crimes then I can see how they would be war criminals.


They can't be war criminals because then they would just be POWs. If they are prisoners taken during war, how are they not POWs? The only thing I can imagine is that it isn't considered "war" (between two nations). But if that is the case, they are criminals (not war criminals, but just criminals). "Conspiracy to harbor terrorists" might work.


But not fighting under the rules of the Geneva Convention in my mind has not been dealt with in the past.

What we need is a legal expert versed in this area. Any help would be apreciated. [/B]

One thing that is making it even more confusing is the designation "illegal combatants." I think the US code actually classifies them as "enemy combatants," which is even more vague.

[CWL]

Originally posted by hammegk


If a state has the will to do so, and the means to enforce a decision, yes. Now what?

Perhaps you and other like-minded individuals should form a nation-state, raise an army, and declare war on the US. (Try terrorism first, although we may be getting a handle on how to deal with that too.)

I don't know which "like-minded individuals" you are referring to, but I personally thought that the US was firmly based on the rule of law. Now you seem tell me that it is simply based on "might is right" - the very same princples on which the former USSR and Nazi Germany was based upon. Excuse me if I beg to differ in defense of the US (which I feel strongly that I must do, despite the fact that I am not a US citizen).

I am not saying that it is wrong to detain people who have committed crimes. Quite on the contrary. I am however saying that if one does so, it should be done in accordance with the rule of law. Such poeple should be charged with the crimes they have committed and should be given their day in court.

I simply cannot see why this should not apply to the "illegal combatants". Prove them guilty and give them their just punishment. But do not detain them without a fair trial. Would you do this to your own citizens?

You may want to think before you post, Sir.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL


I don't know which "like-minded individuals" you are referring to, but I personally thought that the US was firmly based on the rule of law. Now you seem tell me that it is simply based on "might is right" - the very same princples on which the former USSR and Nazi Germany was based upon. Excuse me if I beg to differ in defense of the US (which I feel strongly that I must do, despite the fact that I am not a US citizen).
Beg & differ all you want. Rule of Law is what armed men provide, throughout recorded history and still today. You seem to think differently; what example do you propose?


I am not saying that it is wrong to detain people who have committed crimes. Quite on the contrary. I am however saying that if one does so, it should be done in accordance with the rule of law. Such poeple should be charged with the crimes they have committed and should be given their day in court.
Yeah SCOTUS has given lots of US citizen protections to non-citizens, and war/terrorism show the weak points of that doctrine.

Hopefully they will begin to worry more about US citizenship, and how it is a priviledge rather than a right for all.
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

(2) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

(4) accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

(5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

(6) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war") (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

(7) conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).


I simply cannot see why this should not apply to the "illegal combatants". Prove them guilty and give them their just punishment. But do not detain them without a fair trial. Would you do this to your own citizens?
Not if they remained "citizens".


You may want to think before you post, Sir.
I think quite a lot, thanks. You just don't care for the direction of my thoughts in this matter, as I don't care for yours.

Perhaps your time would be better spent on problems that actually effect you. Blather about things that affect you is fun though, huh? Nothing bothers you about Europe in particular, Asia, or Africa?

[CWL]

Originally posted by hammegk
Beg & differ all you want. Rule of Law is what armed men provide, throughout recorded history and still today. You seem to think differently; what example do you propose?
If I may be so bold as to ask you first whether or not you disagree with the principle. Are you in favour of the Rule of Law? "Innocent until provided guilty"? Is that a good concept? "Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege"? Is that mere hogwash to be ignored, provided one has sufficient fire power to do so?

Yeah SCOTUS has given lots of US citizen protections to non-citizens, and war/terrorism show the weak points of that doctrine.

"SCOTUS"? Please enlighten me.

Hopefully they will begin to worry more about US citizenship, and how it is a priviledge rather than a right for all.

Not if they remained "citizens".

Ah. But why should the rule of law only apply to citizens? Is there any particular reason other than "because you say so"?

I think quite a lot, thanks. You just don't care for the direction of my thoughts in this matter, as I don't care for yours.
From your previous post I gather that you know nothing or very little of the direction of my thoughts in this matter, so how can you decide whether or not you care for it? That was merely the point I was trying to make. Debate is about respondning to what the other party actually says or thinks, not about responding to what you anticipate the other party may say or think. Strawman, anyone?

Perhaps your time would be better spent on problems that actually effect you. Blather about things that affect you is fun though, huh? Nothing bothers you about Europe in particular, Asia, or Africa?
Just so happens that a Swedish citizen is held at Guantanamo. Besides, I think it is rather safe to say that the doctrines of the world's most important democracy affect us all.

By the way, what makes you think that nothing bothers me about Europe - or Asia or Africa for that matter. More Men-o-Straw perchance?

[Clancie]

Hammegk,
Off topic, but it will only take a second.:)

I'm curious...Why Eliot? I don't think he would share your political views. Do you?

[Fade]

"SCOTUS"?
Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS is just an easier abbreviation, used to be precise.

Anyway, as I said before, if we don't treat 10 year old combatants as we do 20 year old, what's to stop countries from using that to their advantage? I don't think there should be any age limit for questioning and imprisonment when it comes to war. We're talking about lives here.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Fade
Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS is just an easier abbreviation, used to be precise.
Thanks. One learns something new every day.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I really don't know what you mean by "acting in an illegal manner." What did they do that was illegal? In order to be protected by the Geneva Convention you must conduct any military action in a prescribed manner. Failure to do so does not render you a criminal. It renders you an illegal combatant.

...combatants have to follow basic rules of war, like wearing uniforms, carrying your arms openly, and respecting the rules of war. Al Qaeda's members obviously don't qualify, and even Taliban soldiers may not.

Other than that, they probably fought back when the US attacked, but I have a hard time imagining this to be illegal. They did not follow rules of war. Just because you are attacked does not mean you can toss out the rules.

RandFan
Can you show any precedent to support the idea that they must be treated specifically as POWs or criminals?

How about the fact that there has to be a reason to capture them? We are fighting them in combat, or they have done something wrong that we feel needs to addressed. If it is the former, they are POW. If the latter, they are accused criminals and are subject to the rights of accused criminals. Your statement does not address the fact that they were not following the rules of war yet they did not commit war crimes.

This leaves them in a difficult position. Since they did not commit war crimes then they cannot be treated as war criminals. Since they were in combat we must treat them in part as combatants. since they were not following the rules of the Geneva Convention then we must treat them as "illegal combatants".

They can't be war criminals because then they would just be POWs. No, they would be war criminals. There is a big difference as I understand it. I would love to see more on the subject.

If they are prisoners taken during war, how are they not POWs? Because they were not following the rules of war. They were in fact breaking the rules thus losing some of the protections of those rules.

The only thing I can imagine is that it isn't considered "war" (between two nations). But if that is the case, they are criminals (not war criminals, but just criminals). "Conspiracy to harbor terrorists" might work. No, they are illegal combatants. They were fighting a war and were not following the rules of that war. This does not make them criminals. It does not make them war criminals. It makes them illeagal combatants.

"Illegal Combatants" and the Law of Armed Conflict (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/aug02/law.asp)

There is a real conundrum as to how to treat these combatants as either POWs or criminals. That it would server some to politically clasify them as POWs or criminals does not justify such action.

One thing that is making it even more confusing is the designation "illegal combatants." I think the US code actually classifies them as "enemy combatants," which is even more vague. In all of this time I have forgoten how the "illegal combatants" are treated differently than POWs. Can you refresh my memory? I can't find it on google. I know there is a distinction but I have forgoten exactly what it is.

Thanks

RandFan

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL

If I may be so bold as to ask you first whether or not you disagree with the principle. Are you in favour of the Rule of Law? "Innocent until provided guilty"? Is that a good concept? "Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege"? Is that mere hogwash to be ignored, provided one has sufficient fire power to do so?

Concepts are not worth a cup of warm spit until a mechanism for enforcing them is in place.


Ah. But why should the rule of law only apply to citizens? Is there any particular reason other than "because you say so"?
Rules of Law apply to everyone who lives in a social group. Each group can as best it can extend or deny protection as current leadership & interpretation -- backed by force -- deems fit. The US with 3 branches of gov't has been successful in it's endeavers for a time. I'd selfishly prefer that continue.


From your previous post I gather that you know nothing or very little of the direction of my thoughts in this matter, so how can you decide whether or not you care for it? That was merely the point I was trying to make. Debate is about respondning to what the other party actually says or thinks, not about responding to what you anticipate the other party may say or think. Strawman, anyone?
You mean you hold views similar to mine? My reading of a number of your posts does not support that contention, imo.


Just so happens that a Swedish citizen is held at Guantanamo. Besides, I think it is rather safe to say that the doctrines of the world's most important democracy affect us all.
Tough. Sweden has idiots, too. And yes the US will effects you & yours, like it or not.


By the way, what makes you think that nothing bothers me about Europe - or Asia or Africa for that matter. More Men-o-Straw perchance?
Just curious why denigrating the US is a preferred option for you rather than actually doing something somewhere.

It seems to me that Men-o-Straw are what people espousing ideals ignore, yet is logically a cornerstone of a specified position.

[CWL]

Originally posted by hammegk
Concepts are not worth a cup of warm spit until a mechanism for enforcing them is in place.

That's a nice attitude I must say. Let's then forget about democracy, justice, freedom of speach, etc. If it cannot be enforced it's not worth fighting for, eh?

Rules of Law apply to everyone who lives in a social group. Each group can as best it can extend or deny protection as current leadership & interpretation -- backed by force -- deems fit. The US with 3 branches of gov't has been successful in it's endeavers for a time. I'd selfishly prefer that continue.

Ok. No rights whatsoever for non US citizens, then. At least you're honest. However, next time I visit the States I will be thankful that SCOTUS is of a different opinion.

You mean you hold views similar to mine? My reading of a number of your posts does not support that contention, imo.

That may very well be so. I can however assure you that I hold no views even in the vicinity of your proposition that I should form "a nation-state, raise an army, and declare war on the US" and "try terrorism first". I happen to be a firm supporter of the US and many of the principles for which it stands. But you literally choose to see red instead of considering what I am actually trying to say.

Tough. Sweden has idiots, too. And yes the US will effects you & yours, like it or not.

Indeed we do have our idiots - in abundance I can assure you. Again, I am not saying that it is wrong detaining "illegal combatans" - Swedish citizens or not. I am however saying that any nation which purports to live by the Rule of Law (and the US is definetely such a nation, and I admire it for that) must clearly lay down the rules of such detention. Any criminal should get their day in court. The "illegal combatants" are either POW:s or criminals. They should be treated as either. Why is that such a controversial proposition?

Just curious why denigrating the US is a preferred option for you rather than actually doing something somewhere.

In what way have I denigrated the US? Why do you automatically assume that this is my agenda?

What do you mean by "actually doing something somewhere"? What are you "actually doing" youself, and where?

It seems to me that Men-o-Straw are what people espousing ideals ignore, yet is logically a cornerstone of a specified position.

Eloquent but incomprehensible. In reality a strawman is the fallacy committed when a person simply ignores someone's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. But we both know that you already knew that. You seem to have quite a knack of constructing them, but are you sure that you wouldn't like to debate the actual ideas of real people instead? I personally thought that was the purpose of this forum...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


So then why aren't they considered prisoners of war?
Because, as so so many people have said before, a "prisioner of war" (according to the Geneva convention) has to be a member of a recognized armed forces, must wear a distinctive uniform, must follow the rules of the Geneva convention themselves, etc. They don't meet the requirements.

[Clancie]

Segnosaur,

Then why can't any nation seize and incarcerate citizens of any other nation (we were not, after all, officially at war with Afghanistan)?

And if Iraq, whom we have declared war with, sent an army to the U.S., would they be "entitled"--by your reasoning--to incarcerate any Americans who they thought opposed them?

If not, why? Because "might makes right"?

By this reasoning were Germans within their legitimate rights to take citizens of countries they occupied during WWII, perhaps civilian resistance fighters (or anyone they claimed they even suspected of resistance), and put them into detention camps?

If not, what's the difference?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancy

By this reasoning were Germans within their legitimate rights to take citizens of countries they occupied during WWII, perhaps civilian resistance fighters (or anyone they claimed they even suspected of resistance), and put them into detention camps?



I'm sure Segnosaur will have more to add, but are you seriously comparing current U.S. Government policy regarding these detainees, to that of WWII Germany and their treatment of civilians in the countries they occupied, with the idea that they are remotely similar?

Is that all you have?

[toddjh]

I'm undecided on the ethical status of the detainees, but I'm puzzled by those who think they should be considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Have they read it? Article 4 clearly defines the criteria for deciding who is a prisoner of war, and the detainees do not fall under any of those categories.

They are also not United States citizens, and thus the Constitutional guarantees of legal representation, due process, etc., do not extend to them.

If you are going to argue against their treatment on ethical grounds, by all means proceed. I may even agree with you. But it's highly disingenuous to act as though there is some legal issue regarding their status.

Jeremy

[Clancie]

...are you seriously comparing current U.S. Government policy regarding these detainees, to that of WWII Germany and their treatment of civilians in the countries they occupied, with the idea that they are remotely similar?

The point I'm making is this: if something is just and fair in principle, then it is just and fair for every country to do it, not only for the United States. (For example, the concepts embodied by the Geneva Conventions are suitable for universal application, not only by one nation).

My question is: is this U.S. policy toward "detainees", the policy that some of you are so vigorously advocating, fair if every nation implements the same principle?

Or is it only okay with you when this policy is done by Americans?

And, if the latter, how can you argue that it is "just"?

[iain]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I'm sure Segnosaur will have more to add, but are you seriously comparing current U.S. Government policy regarding these detainees, to that of WWII Germany and their treatment of civilians in the countries they occupied, with the idea that they are remotely similar?

Is that all you have? Actually I think Clancy was asking a good question. Ignore the Germany bit if you like; I think it deserves an answer.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by iain
Actually I think Clancy was asking a good question. Ignore the Germany bit if you like; I think it deserves an answer.

You can ignore the Germany bit if you like. And when you do, what is the question?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancy


The point I'm making is this: if something is just and fair in principle, then it is just and fair for every country to do it, not only for the United States. (For example, the concepts embodied by the Geneva Conventions are suitable for universal application, not only by one nation).

My question is: is this U.S. policy toward "detainees", the policy that some of you are so vigorously advocating, fair if every nation implements the same principle?

Or is it only okay with you when this policy is done by Americans?

And, if the latter, how can you argue that it is "just"?

I wouldn't.

Next question?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Fade

Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS is just an easier abbreviation, used to be precise.

Anyway, as I said before, if we don't treat 10 year old combatants as we do 20 year old, what's to stop countries from using that to their advantage? I don't think there should be any age limit for questioning and imprisonment when it comes to war. We're talking about lives here.

So because one side exploits children, everyone can.

[iain]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You can ignore the Germany bit if you like. And when you do, what is the question? If it were the other way round and a foreign power invaded the US (to make it a little more realistic, let's say Hawaii or some distant part of Alaska), US citizens would presumably take up arms against the invader.

In this situation, would it be reasonable for the agressor to take Americans to some foreign place and hold them without charge or without access to lawyers or due process as "unlawful combatants". even if the US citizens were well treated.

To make it more interesting, what if the US Government had been assisting terrorists against that country (though of course the US citizens couldn't be held responsible for the covert actions of their government). This isn't too far-fetched - the British Government have been revealed as doing exactly this in the late 80's and early 90's and the US Government certainly has in the past too.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by iain
If it were the other way round and a foreign power invaded the US (to make it a little more realistic, let's say Hawaii or some distant part of Alaska), US citizens would presumably take up arms against the invader.

In this situation, would it be reasonable for the agressor to take Americans to some foreign place and hold them without charge or without access to lawyers or due process as "unlawful combatants". even if the US citizens were well treated.

To make it more interesting, what if the US Government had been assisting terrorists against that country (though of course the US citizens couldn't be held responsible for the covert actions of their government). This isn't too far-fetched - the British Government have been revealed as doing exactly this in the late 80's and early 90's and the US Government certainly has in the past too.

No, it wouldn't be reasonable.. But neither is the chance that your scenario would transpire.

How many ' Children ' are we talking about here? Not to mention the fact that they are probably living the best days of their lives.( .. and no, that doesn't justify detaining them, but do you really imagine they want to go home? If you truly do, then I respect your opinion.)

Both sides are saying ' what if ' in an extreme sort of way.. once the 'Hitler" card has been played, any sense of rationality is trumped.

There is no precedent being set here, that will pave the way for the future policy of the U.S. regarding human rights. Anyone who thinks so, in my opinion, needs to get a life or see if PETA has any openings on their staff.

[Clancie]

In this situation, would it be reasonable for the aggressor to take Americans to some foreign place and hold them without charge or without access to lawyers or due process as "unlawful combatants". even if the US citizens were well treated.Right, iain. You understand the point I am making about the concept of morality and justice. If our policy of detaining these people from other countries at Guantanamo the way we are is right and fair, then it should be fine for other countries to do it, too, even if the detainees wiind up being Americans.
originally posted by Diogenes

No, it wouldn't be reasonable.. But neither is the chance that your scenario would transpire.
Why so? There are similar situations all the time. That's not the point. Do you realize this or not? The point is that if its an acceptable policy for the U.S. then it should be acceptable to us if other nations do exactly the same thing, too That's a good way to determine the principle of fairness vs. the "principle" of self-serving expediency, (like the Geneva Conventions).
How many ' Children ' are we talking about here?
I know that was the topic of the thread, Diogenes, but I've broadened the question. I'm not talking about only the children. I'm talking about the entire detainment policy which you, and others, seem so supportive of.
Not to mention the fact that they are probably living the best days of their lives.
That's a pretty arrogant presumption when you've imprisoned people against their will. If the Russians or Iraqis said that about their detainees, we'd be fuming.
...Both sides are saying ' what if ' in an extreme sort of way.. once the 'Hitler" card has been played, any sense of rationality is trumped.
My "German analogy" obviously didn't say "This policy is like Hitler's", but instead I was positing the relative morality of the Guantanamo detainment and to ask if you and others would support it with any consistency if it was used by other countries.
If Germany is a distraction, then forget Germany, as iain suggested. Doing so doesn't change my question at all.
There is no precedent being set here, that will pave the way for the future policy of the U.S. regarding human rights. Anyone who thinks so, in my opinion, needs to get a life or see if PETA has any openings on their staff.
A specious argument. I guess you can't defend the policy or won't look at the implications of defending it. We would not accept the Russians saying, "Its wrong if we do it again, but its only this one time."

Again, if this method of arresting and incarcerating foreign nationals without charges and without legal counsel is just and fair, then it should be fine for us to do it again.

Likewise, if its good for the United States, I would appreciate someone who supports it explaining clearly the reason why, given similar circumstances (from their point of view anyway) other countries should not be perfectly free to follow the same actions against their chosen "enemy".

If this detainment policy isn't something we'd support other countries doing--only Americans--then I think we're making a "might makes right" argument that is, imo, indefensible.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
Segnosaur,

Then why can't any nation seize and incarcerate citizens of any other nation (we were not, after all, officially at war with Afghanistan)?

And if Iraq, whom we have declared war with, sent an army to the U.S., would they be "entitled"--by your reasoning--to incarcerate any Americans who they thought opposed them?

If not, why? Because "might makes right"?

By this reasoning were Germans within their legitimate rights to take citizens of countries they occupied during WWII, perhaps civilian resistance fighters (or anyone they claimed they even suspected of resistance), and put them into detention camps?

If not, what's the difference?


Well gee I’m just guessing but maybe because they are apart of a worldwide terrorist network bent on destroying the US?

[Clancie]

originally posted by Clancy
Then why can't any nation seize and incarcerate citizens of any other nation...?
originally posted by Baker
Well gee I’m just guessing but maybe because they are apart of a worldwide terrorist network bent on destroying the United States?
Actually, Baker, its an allegation, not a proven fact, that these people in Guantanamo are "part of a worldwide terrorist network".

But you'd be comfortable if your statement on behalf of the U.S. would be used by any other country, too, right?

In other words, if the Russian government incarcerated nationals from 40 other countries (including the U.S.), all people who they picked up in, say, the Balkans, as long as they said, "They're part of a worldwide terrorist network bent on destroying Russia" that would be perfectly okay with you for them to detain them indefinitely without charges and without counsel?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Clancy
Then why can't any nation seize and incarcerate citizens of any other nation (we were not, after all, officially at war with Afghanistan)?

Actually, I don't know what the status of the Afghanistan conflict was. The US did issue an ultimatum (turn over bin Laden or we will go in.) Would that count as a 'declaration of war'? (After all, U.S. intent was clear.)

Originally posted by Clancy
And if Iraq, whom we have declared war with, sent an army to the U.S., would they be "entitled"--by your reasoning--to incarcerate any Americans who they thought opposed them?

If not, why? Because "might makes right"?

By this reasoning were Germans within their legitimate rights to take citizens of countries they occupied during WWII, perhaps civilian resistance fighters (or anyone they claimed they even suspected of resistance), and put them into detention camps?

If not, what's the difference?

There are several differences.... (and several reasons why its not just a case of 'might makes right')

- You are assuming moral equivalence. Granted, it reflects my bias for western society, but I truly believe that a free society is best. Granted, someone raised in a communist or islamic country may have a different opinion

- The non-fighting citizens were non-combatants. There should be no reason to detain them. There is a very practical reason to detain the people at Gitmo... they have been trained and are quite willing to take arms against western society, either directly, or to protect others that will. I would have concern if the U.S. were setting up concentration camps for 'all' Afghanistan citizens, but they aren't. Its a strawman.

Now, you suggested that they might incarcerate someone just 'suspected' of being a resistance fighter. But in this case, treating them as a POW would make no difference. So its a non-issue.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Clancy

Likewise, if its good for the United States, I would appreciate someone who supports it explaining clearly the reason why, given similar circumstances (from their point of view anyway) other countries should not be perfectly free to follow the same actions against their chosen "enemy".

If this detainment policy isn't something we'd support other countries doing--only Americans--then I think we're making a "might makes right" argument that is, imo, indefensible.

Sorry. Might Makes Right is the -- single, only -- fact that is "defensible" in any geopolitically meaningful sense.

Any country with the balls to try it can go any course they choose -- until their choice steps on the wrong toes. Then, kaboom, although not necessarily from the US. See Iraq v. Bush (I&II) rather than Iran v. Carter, for examples. Shall we discuss realpolitics and results of Reagan v Clinton?

IMO, your apparent disregard for the reality of today (hasn't changed much for 000's of yrs either) is indefensible. :rolleyes:

How do you continue to believe that all cultures are "equally right"?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy


Actually, Baker, its an allegation, not a proven fact, that these people in Guantanamo are "part of a worldwide terrorist network".

But you'd be comfortable if your statement on behalf of the U.S. would be used by any other country, too, right?

In other words, if the Russian government incarcerated nationals from 40 other countries (including the U.S.), all people who they picked up in, say, the Balkans, as long as they said, "They're part of a worldwide terrorist network bent on destroying Russia" that would be perfectly okay with you for them to detain them indefinitely without charges and without counsel?

If there aim were destroying Russia then yes they would have a right to detain them.
How many of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay claim that they were not apart of Al-Qaeda?

[iain]

Originally posted by Baker
Well gee I'm just guessing but maybe because they are apart of a worldwide terrorist network bent on destroying the US? Yes, you're just guessing because we don't know (unless you have some inside information, in which case I'll let you off ;)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL


Let's then forget about democracy, justice, freedom of speach, etc. If it cannot be enforced it's not worth fighting for, eh?
Forget them? No, those are things people shed blood for to have and to hold.


Ok. No rights whatsoever for non US citizens, then. At least you're honest. However, next time I visit the States I will be thankful that SCOTUS is of a different opinion.
If you would like the US to take over the world & provide our freedoms to everyone, that would be a good thing I'd agree. Which state # should you be?


That may very well be so. I can however assure you that I hold no views even in the vicinity of your proposition that I should form "a nation-state, raise an army, and declare war on the US" and "try terrorism first". I happen to be a firm supporter of the US and many of the principles for which it stands. But you literally choose to see red instead of considering what I am actually trying to say.
Sorry if sound advice is too much for you. I like to find fault too. Shall we discuss Europe?


Indeed we do have our idiots - in abundance I can assure you. Again, I am not saying that it is wrong detaining "illegal combatans" - Swedish citizens or not. I am however saying that any nation which purports to live by the Rule of Law (and the US is definetely such a nation, and I admire it for that) must clearly lay down the rules of such detention. Any criminal should get their day in court. The "illegal combatants" are either POW:s or criminals. They should be treated as either. Why is that such a controversial proposition?
Because they are neither, as has been carefully pointed by others. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No.


In what way have I denigrated the US? Why do you automatically assume that this is my agenda?
If you were not denigrating the US what were you doing?

What do you mean by "actually doing something somewhere"? What are you "actually doing" youself, and where?
Whatever I'm doing at least doesn't involve bad-mouthing Sweden.

And you know -- doing something. Are you a member of Amnesty International? Have you traveled to Guantanamo to see the actual conditions?


Eloquent but incomprehensible. In reality a strawman is the fallacy committed when a person simply ignores someone's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. But we both know that you already knew that. You seem to have quite a knack of constructing them, but are you sure that you wouldn't like to debate the actual ideas of real people instead? I personally thought that was the purpose of this forum...
Interesting how one man's cogent-to-him thoughts can be mis-interpreted isn't it? We are discussing things, are we not?

[Smalso]

RandFan:In any event I am still a bit concerned about the detainees not being charged or having leagal assistance. I would like some more information on this if anyone has it.

Me too. I have read several reports that the "detainees" are well treated and I have no reason to doubt them. It does cause me some concern that the U.S. government does not practice what it preaches, when it comes to granting rights that are considered "inalienable" to certain groups because, it appears, we're pissed at them. If memory serves, North Viet Nam took a similar position regarding American prisoners. American prisoners were considered criminals and not entitled to humane treatment. The U.S. raised holy hell about it at that time and now, it seems it is saying pretty much the same thind about the Gitmo prisoners.

[Clancie]

If memory serves, North Viet Nam took a similar position regarding American prisoners. American prisoners were considered criminals and not entitled to humane treatment. The U.S. raised holy hell about it at that time and now, it seems it is saying pretty much the same thind about the Gitmo prisoners.

Smalso,

Interesting you mentioned that. I just read a comment by John McCain yesterday (will try to find it again) saying that it was tough for them in the North Vietnamese prison, but it would have been so much worse without the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

I know the conditions the Guantanamo "detainees" were originally placed in (small wire cages open to the elements, blinders and shackles on going from place to place, lights on 24/7, reports of torture during interrogation), etc. seemed obviously brutal.

I can't find any description of how these specific conditions have changed since Jan 2002 (if they have). I think the shelter has improved, but I'm not sure in what way.

Does anyone have a link?

[CWL]

Originally posted by hammegk
Forget them? No, those are things people shed blood for to have and to hold.

So I take it you do not stand by this statement of yours then: "Concepts are not worth a cup of warm spit until a mechanism for enforcing them is in place."?

If you would like the US to take over the world & provide our freedoms to everyone, that would be a good thing I'd agree. Which state # should you be?

As to providing freedom to the world I applaud any action taken in the that direction, by the US or otherwise. As to bringing freedom to Sweden, it's already done - but thank you for asking.

Sorry if sound advice is too much for you. I like to find fault too. Shall we discuss Europe?
You call "attacking the US with terrorism" sound advice?

Discuss Europe? Lets. There is much to be said, both positive and negative.

Because they are neither, as has been carefully pointed by others. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No.Hmmm. Well then. Rules apply for POW. Rules apply for criminals. Which rules apply to "illegal combatants"?

If you were not denigrating the US what were you doing?Merely asking warranted questions in relation to the detainment of the "illegal combatants". It's an important issue which relates to how the concept of the Rule of Law and the treatment of non citizens according to international law (you must recognize that the actions of the US is very important for setting precedents within international law) - both topics which happen to interest me as a lawyer.

Is an enquiring mind the same as a denigrating mind? Perhaps you could provide a specific quote of mine, the aim of which is obviously to "denigrate the US"?

Whatever I'm doing at least doesn't involve bad-mouthing Sweden.
Feel free to bad-mouth away. If your bad-mouthing is justified you might even find me agreeing with you.

And you know -- doing something. Are you a member of Amnesty International? Have you traveled to Guantanamo to see the actual conditions?
Oh well. You do realize that there is only one response to that. Here it comes... Have you?

Interesting how one man's cogent-to-him thoughts can be mis-interpreted isn't it? We are discussing things, are we not? It's pretty hard to tell in the midst of all the flaming really.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
Just because you are attacked does not mean you can toss out the rules.

This in a nutshell expresses the major concerns around much of the world about what the US is doing in Iraq. It was attacked by Al-Quaeda yet has invaded Iraq with the UK to disarm Iraq of WOMD. WOMD which remarkably have not been found yet and in the process is antagonising much of the Iraqi population. Interestingly the US and the UK are suggesting that the UN should not be allowed to verify any WOMD that may turn up. So much for discovering the truth.

It is unfortunate that the word of the US and UK administrations cannot be taken a face value any more. They invaded Iraq without proper UN sanction and apparently to allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves amongst other things. That this was a lie is demonstrated by Rumsfeld saying that the Iraqis would not be allowed to choose an Islamic government for themselves id that is what the actually wanted to do. That this was a lie is shown by contracts being awarded without due process to companies who paid for Bush's election campaign rather than Iraqi companies. That this was a lie is shown by the US's intention to build a number of military bases in Iraq despite US claims that the it would leave Iraq as soon as possible and in some estimates within months.

Are the US and the UK going to fight ordinary Iraqi citizens to stop them choosing the govenment they want? It appears that may be what in fact might happen. Unfortunately the world simply canot trust George Bush and Tony Blair about their intentions in Iraq.

As you so eloquently said RandFan in relation to the way that combatants are treated 'Just because you are atacked does not mea that you can toss out the rules.' When are the people America attacks going to be treated in the way that America demands they treat American invaders? Is sauce for the goose also to be sauce for the gander or is there going to be one rule for the US and one rule for the rest of the world?

Let us have fairness for all under international law, with every country including the US and the UK respecting international law or having their disputes handled under the intenational agreements they subscribe to- then we might begin to see hope for a more peaceful world. If we do not obey the law, on what basis can we ask others to do so?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
This in a nutshell expresses the major concerns around much of the world about what the US is doing in Iraq. It was attacked by Al-Quaeda yet has invaded Iraq with the UK to disarm Iraq of WOMD. I will grant you that 911 was a catalyst but the Iraqi situation predates 911 by a decade.

WOMD which remarkably have not been found yet... It always amazes me when someone posts a response that ignores recent events. This is the 4th time (I think) that I have posted this link and no one even responds. Why? Has it been discredited or is it because it does not fit with a certain world view?

Iraqi Scientist Says WMDs Were Destroyed Days Before War's Start... (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?ex=1051502400&en=558d236c00fc7bc9&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1)

They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said. E.J. could you respond to the above and not ignore it as everyone else has?

and in the process is antagonizing much of the Iraqi population. I am not familiar with this. Could you provide some background?

It is unfortunate that the word of the US and UK administrations cannot be taken a face value any more. There is no reason to believe that they can't. Bush has kept most if not every promise that he has made so far in this endeavor. In fact the world leaders now know that Bush keeps his word. I am at a complete loss how you can make this claim. We have done this to death but I guess we can do it again. Saddam had 12 years to cooperate. He had a 12 year track record of not cooperating and obfuscation. The UN voted to force Iraq to comply or suffer severe consequences. Iraq failed to cooperate (according to Blix and the UN) and France then said they would never vote for intervention this giving Saddam the green light to do what ever he wanted. (stop that or we will give you another condemnation, ohhhhhhh noooo not that). The UN had become irrelevant in this matter. Let's hope they don't become any further irrelevant.

They invaded Iraq without proper UN sanction and apparently to allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves amongst other things. Thousands of people disappearing into the night, torture (people were hung on hooks, ears were cut off) is self governing? Are you really serious?

That this was a lie is demonstrated by Rumsfeld saying that the Iraqis would not be allowed to choose an Islamic government for themselves id that is what the actually wanted to do. Oh, I get it, now that the killings and torturing have stopped we are now guilty of not allowing the "people" of self governance? The majority Shiites want to unite with Iran creating a single theocracy. Hardly self rule for the kurds, Sunni and Bathists.

Fact: When the mighty reject democracy it can't be called self rule.

So let's put the end to that lie right now.

As you so eloquently said RandFan in relation to the way that combatants are treated just because you are attacked does not mean that you can toss out the rules.' Thankfully we are not doing that.

When are the people America attacks going to be treated in the way that America demands they treat American invaders? Is sauce for the goose also to be sauce for the gander or is there going to be one rule for the US and one rule for the rest of the world? The Americans have freed people imprisoned and tortured. Iraqis are now no longer under the thumb of a megalomaniacal traitor.

If my grown son was taken away in the night, never to be seen again I would only hope that some force regardless of motive would keep my next son from suffering the same fate.

Let us have fairness for all under international law, with every country including the US and the UK respecting international law or having their disputes handled under the international agreements they subscribe to- then we might begin to see hope for a more peaceful world. If we do not obey the law, on what basis can we ask others to do so? We have made mistakes in the past. We will make them in the future.

We must first strive to work diplomatically with the rest of the world. Unfortunately the rest of the world does not always have our best interests at heart. Because there are tyrants and dictators and those who do not obey the rule of law we MUST BE PREPARED TO ACT in our best interest at times when it is unpopular.

What we did in Iraq was measured and appropriate. It had a number of benefits including freeing a people from a monster. I am very proud of our decisiveness and willingness to work with the international community but prepared to act to protect American interests when it was obvious that the international community turned it's back.

I know you don't see it that way. I respect your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
I know the conditions the Guantanamo "detainees" were originally placed in (small wire cages open to the elements, blinders and shackles on going from place to place, lights on 24/7, reports of torture during interrogation), etc. seemed obviously brutal. Ooops, you said brutal. Could you define the word "brutal"?

We have been arguing over its use to describe the treatment of these prisoners in another thread. The media is biased? Prove it in real time! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18193&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

Saddam had a nasty habit of cutting the ears off of prisoners.

IRAQ - Systematic torture of political prisoners

I would think that brutal would be reserved for such behavior.

bru·tal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brtl)
adj.
1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
2. Crude or unfeeling in manner or speech.
3. Harsh; unrelenting: a brutal winter in the Arctic.
4. Disagreeably precise or penetrating: spoke with brutal honesty

In light of the definition and the fact that the prisoners recieved health care, food (adhering to religious requirements), shelter, prayer rugs (towels), access to Red Cross (facility on base), prayers over loud speakers etc., then I think the word was used for rhetorical purposes. [/b] Also from another thread

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on." Do you believe the above constitutes "brutal" treatment?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL

So I take it you do not stand by this statement of yours then: "Concepts are not worth a cup of warm spit until a mechanism for enforcing them is in place."?
Sure do. Freedom etc are concepts worth fighting for to put in place & maintain as realities. See how easy the dots connect?


As to providing freedom to the world I applaud any action taken in the that direction, by the US or otherwise. As to bringing freedom to Sweden, it's already done - but thank you for asking.
Just checking to make sure Sweedes don't want to join up with some other guys to start the 4th reich.


You call "attacking the US with terrorism" sound advice?
You think blabbing your personal dissatisfaction on a bbs is a better approach? Yeah, I think you are correct.


Discuss Europe? Lets. There is much to be said, both positive and negative.
Glad you think there are lot's of positives. Er, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs as a rationale for life maybe? What else are you proud about?

Hmmm. Well then. Rules apply for POW. Rules apply for criminals. Which rules apply to "illegal combatants"?
Apparently the ones being applied as we speak that are fine with me but seem to disturb you.

Merely asking warranted questions in relation to the detainment of the "illegal combatants". It's an important issue which relates to how the concept of the Rule of Law and the treatment of non citizens according to international law (you must recognize that the actions of the US is very important for setting precedents within international law) - both topics which happen to interest me as a lawyer.
When Sweden gets to the point its wishes effect international relations of any kind, go for it.

Is an enquiring mind the same as a denigrating mind? Perhaps you could provide a specific quote of mine, the aim of which is obviously to "denigrate the US"?
Oh, pardon me. I missed the fact you were praising our actions.


Feel free to bad-mouth away. If your bad-mouthing is justified you might even find me agreeing with you.
See above.

Oh well. You do realize that there is only one response to that. Here it comes... Have you?
Nope. I've got plenty of reality to work with without thinking a nanosecond about the treatment of people who want to kill me.

I'd be feeding them nothing but pig offal if I were in charge, so they could manage the 12 hr days of hard labor.

It's pretty hard to tell in the midst of all the flaming really.
No flames yet. Just a few wisps of smoke. ;)

[iain]

Originally posted by RandFan
It always amazes me when someone posts a response that ignores recent events. This is the 4th time (I think) that I have posted this link and no one even responds. Why? Has it been discredited or is it because it does not fit with a certain world view?

Iraqi Scientist Says WMDs Were Destroyed Days Before War's Start... (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?ex=1051502400&en=558d236c00fc7bc9&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1)

E.J. could you respond to the above and not ignore it as everyone else has?
It isn't that the link has been ignored, but that everyone is waiting for further information. If we took one report in one media outlet as being proof, we'd have a very distorted view of Iraq right now.

If the story you have linked to turns out to be accurate then that will have to be taken into account. Right now its just a story. (Posting the link 4 times doesn't make it more likely to be true).

[CWL]

Originally posted by hammegk
Sure do. Freedom etc are concepts worth fighting for to put in place & maintain as realities. See how easy the dots connect?
Worth more than warm spit then. I am certainly glad we agree about that.

Just checking to make sure Sweedes don't want to join up with some other guys to start the 4th reich.
Not likely, no. We're on your side and have been since the end of WWII (although we still formally maintain a policy of neutrality, of which I am very critical myself).

You think blabbing your personal dissatisfaction on a bbs is a better approach? Yeah, I think you are correct.
Do not forget that Free Blabbing is one of the fundaments of Western democracy.

Glad you think there are lot's of positives. Er, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs as a rationale for life maybe? What else are you proud about?
Europe is not even in the vicinity of being as homogenous as the US. Despite the EU, Europe is still a mish mash of independent nation states with different languages and cultures. Of course, that is one of the rather charming things about the continent.

If we are going to discuss negatives, I personally feel it is sad that an intervention under the supervision (or at least with the blessing of) the UN was not possible. A UN stamp of approval would have relieved the US (and Coalition) of much of the ill deserved critique which it has received. Further, such an intervention would have made an important (and badly needed) precedent within international law. This was not possible due to the position taken e.g. by Germany and France, which I think is deeply unfortunate.

Apparently the ones being applied as we speak that are fine with me but seem to disturb you.
They are not very well defined - that's what disturbes me. If you make the rules up as you go along, you should at least be clear.

When Sweden gets to the point its wishes effect international relations of any kind, go for it.
We're getting there. Our membership in the EU is certainly a step in the right direction. The discussion about joining NATO is becoming less tabu, which I also belive is positive.

Oh, pardon me. I missed the fact you were praising our actions.
It is often more interesting to discuss the matters on which you disagree, don't you think. I do praise the actions taken by the US. A world without Saddam is a better world. I personally fail to understand how anyone could believe anything else.

See above.

Nope. I've got plenty of reality to work with without thinking a nanosecond about the treatment of people who want to kill me.

I'd be feeding them nothing but pig offal if I were in charge, so they could manage the 12 hr days of hard labor.
Well, fine. The problem is however who gets to decide who gets the pig offal. "Innocent until proven guilty", no? Who decides who's an "illegal combatant" and what defensive measures are available to someone who is accused of being an "illegal combatant"? What are the standards of evidence? Not being contentious, merely wondering.

No flames yet. Just a few wisps of smoke. ;)

Ok. :)

Edited for typos

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by RandFan
I will grant you that 911 was a catalyst but the Iraqi situation predates 911 by a decade.

Nope I don't think that washes. How come the 'WOMD' sold to him by someone - aah yes the US, UK ,France etc suddenly turned dangerous when Hussein had nothing to do with 911? The world has no idea unless they were an excuse for something. 911 was an excuse to enact Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitchs already announced strategy to invade that nice little oil rich country and expand the empire.It always amazes me when someone posts a response that ignores recent events. This is the 4th time (I think) that I have posted this link and no one even responds. Why? Has it been discredited or is it because it does not fit with a certain world view? I have a very simple question about this socalled discovery. Why can the mighty US not look after one solitary scientist? Let's have freedom of speech here and allow the world to speak to the 'scientist'. Along with the amazing WOMD we have the 'scientist' America cannot protect. Brilliant. Why have they found only precursor and not actual WOMD? Apparently the WOMD only existed in kit form. Scary. And that Syrian connection again. Where do all these people and stuff keep disappearing to? Are they all holed up in the Las Vegas Hilton or something? am not familiar with this. Could you provide some background? Can I suggest that you watch the international news. Its all over it.There is no reason to believe that they can't. Bush has kept most if not every promise that he has made so far in this endeavor. In fact the world leaders now know that Bush keeps his word. I am at a complete loss how you can make this claim. We have done this to death but I guess we can do it again. Saddam had 12 years to cooperate. He had a 12 year track record of not cooperating and obfuscation. The UN voted to force Iraq to comply or suffer severe consequences. Iraq failed to cooperate (according to Blix and the UN) and France then said they would never vote for intervention this giving Saddam the green light to do what ever he wanted. (stop that or we will give you another condemnation, ohhhhhhh noooo not that). The UN had become irrelevant in this matter. Let's hope they don't become any further irrelevant. Oh no there isn't. I a very glad that you think you can believe Bush. Many over here find that untenable any more. Let me see. The war was going to fought to allow the Iraqis to govern themselves as they wished. Well I do believe that you have admitted yourself that isn't true. The are only going to allowed to choose the system of govenment that Bush wants. That really is a big whopper. Not enough for you perhaps? What about the promise to get out of Iraq quickly. Difficult to square that with all the military bases to be built there. Still not enough whoppers for you. What about the WOMD itself? Apparently it may all have conveniently been destroyed? Even if it wasn't the US and the UK are not going to allow the UN to validate any that might be found. How stupid does Bush think we are? Very stupid indeed apparently. You hope the UN doesn't become more irrelvant? How could they do that? Say no to Bush perhaps when he engages in another loony enterprise without their sanction? Apparently France and Germany are about to have their economies carpet bombed for having the temerity to do that.Thousands of people disappearing into the night, torture (people were hung on hooks, ears were cut off) is self governing? Are you really serious? Let me see. Iraq is not capable of govening itself and the US has to impose the system it wants onto Iraq. Got it. Democracy - ain't it wonderful?Oh, I get it, now that the killings and torturing have stopped we are now guilty of not allowing the "people" of self governance? The majority Shiites want to unite with Iran creating a single theocracy. Hardly self rule for the kurds, Sunni and Bathists.

Fact: When the mighty reject democracy it can't be called self rule.

So let's put the end to that lie right now.
. Like I say those damn Iraqis can't be trusted to arrange their own government. The good ol' US of A has to do it for them or the natives might get uppity again. Heaven forbid and with all that oil around as well just when the good ol' US of A needs it most. You were saying about putting end to lies RandFan? The natives really do frighten you it seems.Thankfully we are not doing that. Why does the words Guantanamo Bay sound so loudly here? The reason unconvicted people are put there must be so they can enjoy the full benefits of the American legal system. What's that you say? They won't be allowed to go through the full rigours of the American legal system because Guantanamo Bay is not covered by the American constitution. Could these things be related? We should be told.The Americans have freed people imprisoned and tortured. Iraqis are now no longer under the thumb of a megalomaniacal traitor.

If my grown son was taken away in the night, never to be seen again I would only hope that some force regardless of motive would keep my next son from suffering the same fate.
. Exactly. At last. Do you understand now that America supported megalomanical dictators who took other people's innocent sons away into the murderous night. Who liberated them when America supported terrorism around the world? All you seem to want to do is brush it under the carpet by saying it is all in the past. Well it isn't for all those families whose sons were killed by the people America supported. That has to be faced up to one day.We have made mistakes in the past. We will make them in the future.

We must first strive to work diplomatically with the rest of the world. Unfortunately the rest of the world does not always have our best interests at heart. Because there are tyrants and dictators and those who do not obey the rule of law we MUST BE PREPARED TO ACT in our best interest at times when it is unpopular.

What we did in Iraq was measured and appropriate. It had a number of benefits including freeing a people from a monster. I am very proud of our decisiveness and willingness to work with the international community but prepared to act to protect American interests when it was obvious that the international community turned it's back.

I know you don't see it that way. I respect your opinion but I respectfully disagree. So that is all right then. Why does that statement chill my blood so much? Because you have made mistakes in the past does not mean that those mistakes should be swept under the carpet. They must be faced up to or their lessons will not be learnt. Rumsfeld sold WOMD to Iraq. What does he say at night to the ghosts of the people Hussein (who was a known killer when Rumsfeld sold the WOMD to him) killed with those weapons? It's in the past?

There we have it again - American selfish interest and sod the rest unfortunately. So much for the 'coalition'. When others act as America and the UK do then neither will have the moral authority to question their actions. We taught them that might is right and I can see that your concern has nothing to do with world security but a petty isolationism that characterises the Bush administration - unless there is oil about. The big question which I feel must be addressed in the near future by Bush is 'Why do people around the world feel the way they do about America and what can I do to promote world peace?' I am beginning to believe that he has no interest in the answer and if that is really true, his stance threatens us all.

[Clancie]

They won't be allowed to go through the full rigours of the American legal system because Guantanamo Bay is not covered by the American constitution.

Guantanamo is the chosen place for incarceration because the prisoners would fall under U.S. legal protection if imprisoned on U.S. territory.

Bush, Rumsfeld, et al have certainly done everything possible to deny these accused prisoners any legal rights whatsoever, whether the protection of U.S. law or of international law.

To date, they have never been convicted of a crime--not even charged with one.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Guantanamo is the chosen place for incarceration because the prisoners would fall under U.S. legal protection if imprisoned on U.S. territory.

Bush, Rumsfeld, et al have certainly done everything possible to deny these accused prisoners any legal rights whatsoever, whether the protection of U.S. law or of international law.

To date, they have never been convicted of a crime--not even charged with one..
I think we're saying the same thing here? What are Bush, Rumsfeld etc afraid of? Is it that the normal judicial system might treat the detainees better and that it would be more difficult t oexecute them than it would after a military tribunal?

[Clancie]

Yes, E.J Armstrong, I'm in agreement with you.

I just wanted to bluntly underscore the hypocrisy of using Guantanamo to incarcerate these people. It is not only for the military tribunal process (if it ever gets to that point, which it may not).

Most important of all, Bush & Co have subverted the law of the United States by imprisoning anyone they choose at Guantanamo. They are doing this for the sole purpose of being able to completely deprive anyone they choose of any legal rights whatsoever. This kind of action, in principle, is no different from what we see in dictatorships around the world.

I can't understand why there isn't more outrage over this policy in this country.

Throwing people from 40 different nations into jail--without charges against them, without a trial or hearing, with no end of imprisonment in sight--should be abhorrent to everyone who claims to so value the ideals of American democracy--which, Bush and Rumsfeld should be told, means "the rule of law, not men."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Throwing people from 40 different nations into jail--without charges against them, without a trial or hearing, with no end of imprisonment in sight--should be abhorrent to everyone who claims to so value the ideals of American democracy--which, Bush and Rumsfeld should be told, means "the rule of law, not men." And you have been shown why this is not true but you don't care about that do you? That these individuals were fighting and not following the Geneva Convention is of no importance to you. Details details.

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on." Why do you persist in your accusations in the face of the evidence.

Fact: combatants can be held untill the end of hostilities without charges, without council.

Fact: These combatants were not following the Geneva Convention.

Fact: These combatants have recieved excelent care while at Guantanamo.

Details, details, they have away of getting in the way of our moral outrage, don't they?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
There we have it again - American selfish interest and sod the rest unfortunately. E.J., your willingness to misstate my position and not respond in a meaningfull maner has left me no desire to respond to you. You are not interested in a discussion or debate but in rhetoric and fallacious reasoning. I am awaiting your rebuttal in the CBS Producer "Fired For Comparing...." thread and then I'm going to put you on my ignore list. I'm not really interested in rhetorical speeches and a refusal to acknowledge logical argument.

[CWL]

Originally posted by RandFan
And you have been shown why this is not true but you don't care about that do you? That these individuals were fighting and not following the Geneva Convention is of no importance to you. Details details.

True, they were not following the Geneva convention which is a good argument for not categorizing them as POW:s. However, wouldn't that make them criminals who should be charged under US criminal law? Wouldn't there in fact be an obligation to do so if they were detained in a territory formally under the jurisdiction of the US?

[fsol]

Fact: combatants can be held untill the end of hostilities without charges, without council.

Which hostilities? The war against terror? Who decides when that is over?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CWL
True, they were not following the Geneva convention which is a good argument for not categorizing them as POW:s. However, wouldn't that make them criminals who should be charged under US criminal law? First, I am not an attorney and am only stating my opinion.

To answer your question, no, absolutely not. There are practical reasons and purpose for the Geneva Convention. It makes no sense to toss it out the convention simply because the combatants failed to follow some of it's rules. That is why the US is obligated to follow the Geneva Convention as it applies to the detainees. Since they have not commited crimes against humanity they don't qualify as war criminals. Since they have not broken a law that is under something other than the Geneva Convention then they can't be classified simply as criminals. They are illegal combatants.

Wouldn't there in fact be an obligation to do so if they were detained in a territory formally under the jurisdiction of the US? I know of no reason why this has any bearing. Can you provide any?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fsol
Which hostilities? There are currently combatants in Afghanastan carrying out operations against coalition troops. Those hostilities

Who decides when that is over? Fair question and those who think the detainees have been held to long are obligated to call for an end to our involvement in Afghanastan. Personally I think we should maintain our presense there.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CWL
[B]True, they were not following the Geneva convention which is a good argument for not categorizing them as POW:s. /B] I have asked a number of times but no one has responsded yet, but can someone enumerate how we are not treating these combatants as POWs. I know that there is a difference but I forgot what it is and can't find any reference. IIRC it was not significant but I am willing to correct the record if I'm wrong.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have asked a number of times but no one has responsded yet, but can someone enumerate how we are not treating these combatants as POWs.

Why should we be treating them as POWs? Apparently they are not POWs. As such, they should not be treated that way.

What they should be treated as are criminals. Heck, they are even called "illegal combatants." They are being accused of conspiracy to protect/harbor terrorists, which the US has declared to be illegal.

That's why we have captured them. The category "illegal combatants" is something the US made up to avoid having to grant them the rights of the accused that the US constitution affords.

I don't have a cite, because it was long, long ago, but I seem to recall one of the generals claiming that if they were granted POW status, then the US could not interrogate them as they wanted. This is one potential area where they may not be treated as POWs. POWs are only required to give name, rank, and serial number. What sort of information can be required from "illegal combatants"? Are you certain that they have not been interrogated beyond the point of what they would for being POW? My initial impression from comments of the brass is that they were (which is why it concerned me in the first place).

(note also that such questioning without providing the option of a lawyer (which we know they aren't getting) is also wrong if they are classified as criminal, as I suggest they should be)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Why should we be treating them as POWs? Apparently they are not POWs. As such, they should not be treated that way. Apparently they are basically POW's but have lost some of the protections of the Convention having violated the rules of the Convention. You have not stated why the Convention should not apply.

They are being accused of conspiracy to protect/harbor terrorists, which the US has declared to be illegal. I think this is a good answer to my question. Thank you. Do you have evidence that the detainees are being accused of conspiracy?

I don't have a cite, because it was long, long ago, but I seem to recall one of the generals claiming that if they were granted POW status, then the US could not interrogate them as they wanted. It has a ring of truth. I would requre a reference but untill then I will grant you that this is a good posibility

(note also that such questioning without providing the option of a lawyer (which we know they aren't getting) is also wrong if they are classified as criminal, as I suggest they should be) I would need some legal precedent or rational why they should be classified as criminal. Obviousl their classification has ideological ramifications.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Why should we be treating them as POWs? Apparently they are not POWs. As such, they should not be treated that way.

I agree... they do not fit the definition of a POW under the Geneva convention. (No 'command structure', no recognized uniforms, did not recognize geneva convention itself, etc.)

Originally posted by pgwenthold

What they should be treated as are criminals. Heck, they are even called "illegal combatants." They are being accused of conspiracy to protect/harbor terrorists, which the US has declared to be illegal.

The problem is, for many of them, there may not be specific US laws that they would have broken. They were fighting for a government (the Taliban) that the U.S. had basically declared war on. So criminal charges may not apply. (People at Gitmo may be better off that way as well... with criminal charges, they could be in jail for a long time, with the current setup, they may be out sooner, as they could be released when things have stabalized.)

(And just because the U.S. declares something to be illegal, does not mean there are actually laws for it on the books.)

Originally posted by pgwenthold

That's why we have captured them. The category "illegal combatants" is something the US made up to avoid having to grant them the rights of the accused that the US constitution affords.

Are you sure the U.S. just 'made that up'? I was under the impression that the concept of Illegal Combatants was one that was already in the Geneva convention, just not used often.

Either way, they don't fit into either category of criminal or of POW. They're in limbo.
Originally posted by pgwenthold

I don't have a cite, because it was long, long ago, but I seem to recall one of the generals claiming that if they were granted POW status, then the US could not interrogate them as they wanted. This is one potential area where they may not be treated as POWs.

Yes, that is probably the only difference between the way they'd be treated as a POW, versus the way they're treated as 'illegal combatants'.

[Smalso]

I believe that the whole situation is confused to a degree by the fact that war was not declared; and I mean formally, by the Congress. I stated a while back in another thread that I would be much more comfortable if that were the case. That is not to say that I would have necessarily been in favor of it, but at least I would be able to make more sense out of the whole shooting match. If war had been declared, we wouldn't be having this discussion; there would be no question whether the Geneva Conventions applies.

RandFan:
I have asked a number of times but no one has responsded yet, but can someone enumerate how we are not treating these combatants as POWs. I know that there is a difference but I forgot what it is and can't find any reference. IIRC it was not significant but I am willing to correct the record if I'm wrong.

When these "detainees" first started arriving at Gitmo, there were reports that conditions were not up to snuff. This is understandable in view of the fact that it all happened rather suddenly and preparation time was short. Since then, conditions have been vastly improved. The reports that I have seen indicate that they are being humanely treated. If anything to the contrary is going on, somebody's doing one hell of a cover-up job. Either that, or I'm just not reading enough newspapers and magazines.


fsol:
Which hostilities? The war against terror? Who decides when that is over?

RandFan:
Fair question and those who think the detainees have been held to long are obligated to call for an end to our involvement in Afghanastan. Personally I think we should maintain our presense there.

Fair question, indeed. How long should we maintain our presence there? What would be the necessary conditions for our withdrawal?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan

I would need some legal precedent or rational why they should be classified as criminal.

The reason we have captured these people is because they got in the way of our attempts to capture illegal terrorists. Since the people we have captured are not terrorists themselves, then what they are doing wrong is that they are trying to harbor terrorists, which the US says is illegal.

My "rational" for why they should be classified as criminal is that you insist that they are not POWs. If they aren't POWs, then there must be a reason that we are detaining them. If you look at the bare bones of what is going on, you see that the reason we are detaining them is because they tried to prevent the US from finding terrorists, and the US considers "harboring terrorists" to be illegal. Thus, they committed an illegal act. That makes them criminals from the US point of view.

Lastly, your own language acknowledges that these are criminals. "Illegal" combatants. To say that they were combating illegally says that they broke the law, which makes them criminals.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
E.J., your willingness to misstate my position and not respond in a meaningfull maner has left me no desire to respond to you. You are not interested in a discussion or debate but in rhetoric and fallacious reasoning. I am awaiting your rebuttal in the CBS Producer "Fired For Comparing...." thread and then I'm going to put you on my ignore list. I'm not really interested in rhetorical speeches and a refusal to acknowledge logical argument.
I believe that what I posted was a fair reflection of your posted opinions. Amongst other things you stated the following '...we MUST BE PREPARED TO ACT in our best interest at times when it is unpopular.' I believe that most rational people around the world would interpret that as the US being prepared to ignore the wishes of the rest of the world as and when it sees fit rather than abide necessarily with the opinion of the world as expressed through democratic institutions which it nominally supports. I have repeatedly contrasted what Bush has said with the reality of what is happening on the ground as supported by the international media, the Bush administrations own comments and the British military view in Iraq etc. I have stated facts about what America has done aound the world. Now if you want to engage in a discussion of the facts and the logical consequences of America's actions in an open and honest way that is fine. If you do not want to engage in a discussion of the logical consequences of your own views so be it.

I fully debated your views on the thread you quoted and have demonstrated logically that your support for free speech depends upon context - just like nearly everyone else. I note that you have refused to address the issues raised therein. That is your perogative. When you want to justify your latest unsubstantiated claims I will be happy to talk with you again. In the meantime - goodbye.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The reason we have captured these people is because they got in the way of our attempts to capture illegal terrorists. Since the people we have captured are not terrorists themselves, then what they are doing wrong is that they are trying to harbor terrorists, which the US says is illegal. I'm sorry pgwenthold but I don't buy that. My understanding is that they were engaged in combat at the time of their capture. Since they were fighting at the time they are POWs that have failed to live up to the Geneva Convention and thus are illegal combatants.

My "rational" for why they should be classified as criminal is that you insist that they are not POWs. If I have stated categorically that they are not POWs (did I?) then I misspoke. They are illegal combatants as I understand a type of prisoner of war.

If they aren't POWs, then there must be a reason that we are detaining them. If you look at the bare bones of what is going on, you see that the reason we are detaining them is because they tried to prevent the US from finding terrorists,... I don't know of anyone making that argument.

Lastly, your own language acknowledges that these are criminals. "Illegal" combatants. To say that they were combating illegally says that they broke the law, which makes them criminals. They broke the Geneva Convention. I have made this distinction on a number of occasions. Breaking the Geneva Convention does not necassarily make one a criminal. It can make one an illegal combatant.

We are now going in circles and repeating ourselves. Perhaps we should agree to disagree?

[CWL]

Originally posted by RandFan
I know of no reason why this has any bearing. Can you provide any?

Yes, because technically the detainees would have access to US courts which could assess the legality of their detention. Any application to a US court will now be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that this has been considered when the choice of Guantanamo as the place of detention was made.

[fsol]

quote:
Originally posted by fsol
Which hostilities?
There are currently combatants in Afghanastan carrying out operations against coalition troops. Those hostilities


quote:
Who decides when that is over?
Fair question and those who think the detainees have been held to long are obligated to call for an end to our involvement in Afghanastan. Personally I think we should maintain our presense there.

Well thanks for clearing that up for me. If you can help me with this it will be appreciated. Was there ever a war in Afghanistan? Was it actually declared? I thought that war couldn't be declared because the US didn't recognise the Taliban as legitimate rulers. Does the Geneva Convention apply only to official wars or does it apply to any conflict?

[Smalso]

The U.S. raised holy hell about the way American captives were treated in North Viet Nam. Their answer was that American soldiers were not prisoners of war; they were illegally in Viet Nam and were therefore illegal combatants. Ditto Korea in that skirmish.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by fsol
Does the Geneva Convention apply only to official wars or does it apply to any conflict?
From Convention I, art. 2:[T]he 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.

[fsol]

Figured that would be the case, just wanted to be sure. Cheers.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't know of anyone making that argument.


_I'm_ the one making that argument!

I am claiming that the reason they have captured these people is because they fought us in our attempt to find terrorists.

Do you not agree with that?

If that is the case, then it means that the reason we have captured them is because they were trying to harbor terrorists, and we consider that to be illegal.

You can't just say "they were combatants" because that begs of the question of what they were combating. What were they combating? An invading force? No, we were not an invading force, we were there to get the people who harbor terrorists. Someone fighting against us would then be guilty of conspiracy to harbor terrorists.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
_I'm_ the one making that argument! I meant outside of this forum. In the news.

I am claiming that the reason they have captured these people is because they fought us in our attempt to find terrorists. I don't see how the underlying reason for combat would change the combat or the status of individuals siezed during combat. We took prisoners during our combat. They were not following the Geneva Convention. They should not befifit from their falure to follow the Convention. Such a precedent is a bad idea.

Do you not agree with that? I can find no basis for it. Just because people are fighting in war to further terrorism or hide terrorists is no reason to treat them as criminals. Please note that you wrote "fought". Had they followed the Geneva Convention then they would enjoy all of the benifits of the Geneva Convention.

If that is the case, then it means that the reason we have captured them is because they were trying to harbor terrorists, and we consider that to be illegal. I just can't think of a rational to justify this. Do you have any opinion outside this forum?

You can't just say "they were combatants" because that begs of the question of what they were combating. They were involved in combate with us. We entered their country and overthrew their leadership. Am I missing something? There was a war, we went to Afghanastan and encountered troops that were already engaged in war with rebel forces. We joined the rebel forces and succeeded in defeating the troops that were protecting the Taliban using primarily air support and artiliary. We did have troops on the ground and those troops engaged enemy artilery and small arms. How is this not combat?

What were they combating? United States forces and the rebel forces that were already engaged in comabt trying to overthrow the Taliban.

No, we were not an invading force, we were there to get the people who harbor terrorists. So you are saying that we did not sieze territory from the Taliban???

You are saying that we did not help to change the government?

Does this mean that we did not fight a war in Iraq? I don't mean to be snide but I am really confused. Perhaps there is something that I just missed in the news. Everything that I have heard demonstrates to me that there was a war to overthrow the existing government in Afghanastan and that we joined forces who were already in war to overthrow the government. If we had motivations that included finding terrorists then I don't know how that would negate the fact that we were fighting a war.

I would be really interested to hear your reasons.

Someone fighting against us would then be guilty of conspiracy to harbor terrorists. Even if your account were true I would not agree with it absent some rational other then a specious argument.

[RandFan]

Wouldn't there in fact be an obligation to do so if they were detained in a territory formally under the jurisdiction of the US?

RandFan
I know of no reason why this has any bearing. Can you provide any?

Originally posted by CWL
Yes, because technically the detainees would have access to US courts which could assess the legality of their detention. Any application to a US court will now be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that this has been considered when the choice of Guantanamo as the place of detention was made. You seem to be arguing both sides of the coin on this one. Why would they choose to hold them in Guantamo for the express purpose of avoiding jurisdiction if there in fact is jurisdiction because it was a former US territory.

I do understand your question and point though. I will grant you that legal considerations were given in the choice of Guantanamo and that jurisdiction was one of those consideration.

I think the whole thing is a difficult situation. We are trying to stop terrorism and we have captured people in the course of combat. If immediately released they will pose problems for the new government and will continue to fight us. Charging them as criminals causes all sorts of problems that are counter productive to our goals. Holding them as POWs serves a purpose but it limits information gathering. Since they did not fight under the terms of the Geneva Convention we have held them as illegal combatants. They recieve nearly all protections of the Convention but are denied some of its status due to their inability to adhere to its rules.

I understand that some do not like this but I would like to see something more besides the arguments thus far to decide that we are holding the detainees illegaly.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan

I don't see how the underlying reason for combat would change the combat or the status of individuals siezed during combat. We took prisoners during our combat. They were not following the Geneva Convention. They should not befifit from their falure to follow the Convention. Such a precedent is a bad idea.


How would being charged as a criminal be considered a "benefit"?

You realize that in addition to being granted the rights of a criminal, being found guilty would subject them to the punishment of being a criminal?


I can find no basis for it. Just because people are fighting in war to further terrorism or hide terrorists is no reason to treat them as criminals.

I thought the whole reason we were fighting terrorism is because it is a criminal behavior?

Are terrorist acts against the US not illegal?



Please note that you wrote "fought". Had they followed the Geneva Convention then they would enjoy all of the benifits of the Geneva Convention.

So if the group at Waco had followed the Geneva convention, would they have been able to enjoy the benefits of the Geneva Convention?


I just can't think of a rational to justify this. Do you have any opinion outside this forum?


I'd prefer that you address the argument I am making.


They were involved in combate with us.


The Branch Davidians were involved in combate with us, too.

I agree, the people were fighting against us. That was because we attacked them to try to remove the people that harbor terrorists.


We entered their country and overthrew their leadership. Am I missing something? There was a war, we went to Afghanastan and encountered troops that were already engaged in war with rebel forces. We joined the rebel forces and succeeded in defeating the troops that were protecting the Taliban using primarily air support and artiliary. We did have troops on the ground and those troops engaged enemy artilery and small arms. How is this not combat?
[quote]

We went in as a police force, no different from the FBI going in after a mob boss. The only difference is that the mob boss is not the ruler of a country.

The people we have captured are not soldiers of an army, but they fought to protect the mob boss. Thus, they should be treated like those who conspire to protect organized crime.



[quote]
United States forces and the rebel forces that were already engaged in comabt trying to overthrow the Taliban.

So you are saying that we did not sieze territory from the Taliban???


As far as I know, the US has not claimed any territory in Afghanistan.


You are saying that we did not help to change the government?

Does this mean that we did not fight a war in Iraq? [/B]

Non sequitor.

The war against Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions and was nothing like the war in Afghanistan.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
How would being charged as a criminal be considered a "benefit"? It would be difficult to prove that the individual soldiers were actually harboring terrorists. Such a charge would lead to almost immediate release and allow them to go back to the battlefield.

You realize that in addition to being granted the rights of a criminal, being found guilty would subject them to the punishment of being a criminal? Since the individual soldiers did not actually harbor any terrorists and were carrying out their prescribed orders as soldiers following a chain of command it would be all but impossible to secure indictments much less convictions.

I thought the whole reason we were fighting terrorism is because it is a criminal behavior? We went to Afghanistan to over throw the government. It was the government that was harboring terrorists.

So if the group at Waco had followed the Geneva convention, would they have been able to enjoy the benefits of the Geneva Convention? I don't know enough to answer that question. I don't know of any rule that precludes US citizens from enjoying the rights of the Convention but taking arms against the US as a US citizen is treason and I think that would open up an entirely different can of worms. I don't think your question is very helpful here.

pgwenthold
I am claiming that the reason they have captured these people is because they fought us in our attempt to find terrorists.

Do you not agree with that?

RandFan
I just can't think of a rational to justify this. Do you have any opinion outside this forum?

I'd prefer that you address the argument I am making. I apologize, I misread the question.

Let me state that I believe that we captured these individuals because they were fighting us. The reason why they were fighting us is not germane to the reason we captured the.

The Branch Davidians were involved in combate with us, too. Again, I am not an expert. I'm not sure what point that you are trying to make. The incident at Waco was precipitated by a specific event that necessitated the intervention of law enforcement. How do you go from there to combat?

I agree, the people were fighting against us. That was because we attacked them to try to remove the people that harbor terrorists. That is a bit simplistic, they also trained and sponsored terrorism. But I don't see the significance of the point. That fact is we chose to invade and overthrow a government.

As far as I know, the US has not claimed any territory in Afghanistan. Seizing territory militarily is not the same as claiming territory to be held by the United States. Our soldiers seized and held territory so that the Taliban could not occupy it.

Non sequitor.

The war against Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions and was nothing like the war in Afghanistan. It absolutely follows my premise and my inference.

Proposition, our military intervention in Iraq had demonstrably the same military objectives as our military intervention in Afghanistan.

Premises.

1. In both instances we seized and occupied territory.

2. In both instances we removed the governing body.

3. In both instances we used armed combat to achieve our objectives.

Inference and conclusion: since both conflicts used the same general strategy to remove the ruling party's control of the country then both were the same militarily.

The motivations are irrelevant to whether or not a war has been fought or whether the combatants are indeed combatants.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by smalso
The U.S. raised holy hell about the way American captives were treated in North Viet Nam. Their answer was that American soldiers were not prisoners of war; they were illegally in Viet Nam and were therefore illegal combatants. Ditto Korea in that skirmish.

Excellent point. It seems that the US is often hypocritical in its actions - as are many other countries - and it is difficult to see how the US can require others do what it will not do itself.

In their letter to Rumsfeld Human Rights Watch stated
'Civilians typically qualify as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva IV, Art. 4). Under that convention, the United States is obliged to observe protections for civilians in the areas it occupies, which U.S. policy has interpreted as including “areas through which troops are passing and even on the battlefield.” (Department of the Army, The Law of Land Warfare, Field Manual 27-10, par. 352). According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary, “Even a patrol which penetrates into enemy territory without any intention of staying there must respect the conventions in its dealing with the civilians it meets” (ICRC, Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, p.60).

The Fourth Geneva Convention permits the United States as an occupying power to keep civilians in detention (“internment”) in only two situations: after prosecution before a properly constituted court, or for “imperative reasons of security” (Geneva IV, Art. 78). The United States has apparently not brought charges against any detainees at Guantánamo. It can therefore hold the civilian detainees only if a decision regarding the necessity of internment has been “made according to a regular procedure,” in accordance with the convention, including an appeal and a review every six months (Geneva IV, Art. 78). The decision regarding the necessity of internment cannot be made collectively; “each case must be decided separately” (ICRC, Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 367). The United States is also obliged to periodically review the necessity of continued internment (Geneva IV, Art. 78) and to release each interned person “as soon as the reasons which necessitated his internment no longer exist” (Geneva IV, Art. 132). In any case, unless the person is serving a prison sentence, internment shall “cease as soon as possible after the close of hostilities” (Geneva IV, Art. 133). '

The letter goes on to say :-
'We are not aware that U.S. officials have made individual determinations according to a regular procedure (with right to appeal and periodic review) concerning the security threat posed by any protected person under its control. If, as the Los Angeles Times has reported, U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan determined that at least some of the civilians sent to Guantánamo had no meaningful connection to the Taliban or al-Qaeda, it is difficult to conceive how their detention could be considered “imperative” for national security.'
It is clear therefore that the US is not applying the Geneva Convention properly in respect of civilian detainees.

In relation to captured beligerants the letter goes on to state:-
'As Human Rights Watch has repeatedly noted in correspondence and conversations with the Bush Administration, in times of war between states party to the Geneva Conventions (such as Afghanistan and the United States), Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention requires granting POW status to all captured members of the enemy’s regular armed forces. This would include all captured members of the Taliban armed forces, as well as members of any militia that was part of those armed forces.'
They also point out that:-
'The Third Geneva Convention permits the United States to detain POWs without charge for the duration of the armed conflict in which they were captured. For these Taliban soldiers, that conflict – the war between the United States and the government of Afghanistan – has ended. Such Taliban soldiers confined at Guantánamo who are not being prosecuted criminally must be released.'

It is clear that the US is in multiple breach of the Geneva Conventions, yet the US demands and has demanded that other countries such as Iraq observe the Geneva Convention fully in relaion to its own legal and as in Vietnam illegal combatants. When the US administration will not apply the Geneva Convention properly how can it have any moral basis on which to demand that others do what they themselves will not?

Is America becoming a pariah state under George W Bush without respect for the international laws that it demands others adhere to?

[Skeptical Greg]

The U.S. raised holy hell about the way American captives were treated ....

You could have saved a lot of time and left out all the fluff.

[Clancie]

What if some of these people are being detained only because they are believed to support al Queda--i.e. are potential terrorists, according to the Bush administration?

Since no charges have been filed against them in over a year, and none are pending, there may be no charges to make.

What if many are being detained because of their ideas (or suspected beliefs), not any actions at all? Doesn't that violate one of the principles Americans hold dear, the right to think as you please?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Clancy

What if many are being detained because of their ideas (or suspected beliefs), not any actions at all? Doesn't that violate one of the principles Americans hold dear, the right to think as you please?

Yeah, that was a principle US citizens -- and residents who became citizens-- shed blood to gain, and continue to shed blood to protect -- for themselves.

Some of the judiciary find from time to time that our Constitution & legal system need not be used to force the US to commit suicide.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
What if some of these people are being detained only because they are believed to support al Queda--i.e. are potential terrorists, according to the Bush administration?

Since no charges have been filed against them in over a year, and none are pending, there may be no charges to make.

What if many are being detained because of their ideas (or suspected beliefs), not any actions at all? Doesn't that violate one of the principles Americans hold dear, the right to think as you please? Sure those are all possible. I suppose anyone who is held as a result of being involved in an armed conflict could be held for other reasons than the fact that that individual was a combatant. If so then what should we do about POWs?

My question is now that Bush is announcing the end of the war will he release the detainees. If he doesn't then I think the argument that they are being held unjustly becomes stronger.

[Tmy]

When will the war end? hell, when will it start? war has not been declared on any group or country. How can you say its a war. just cause Bush uses the term "war on terror" that makes it offical.

we also have this vauge "War on Drugs". Does that mean you can round up every suspected drug dealer in the country and world and hold them indefinately?

[E.J.Armstrong]

When will the war end? hell, when will it start? war has not been declared on any group or country. How can you say its a war. just cause Bush uses the term "war on terror" that makes it offical.

Truly great point.

It is not apparently a war on terror at all just a war on the terrorists Bush doesn't drink with. See his meeting with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland whose leaders contain an admitted leader of the IRA at a time when a Catholic widowed mother of 10 was murdered by the IRA for simply helping a british soldier who was shot. The IRA then hid her body so her children did not even have that to grieve with. The self same IRA was helped with money from America and still has arms stashes which continue to be ready to terrorise the people of Northern Ireland.

Therefore Dubbya isn't fighting a war on terror as such. As a supremacist he's fighting a war for American supremacy. Terror as we have seen in Iraq is only the excuse. If it isn't why did Rumsfeld supply WOMD to Iraq in the first place when it could easily be used to terrorise the Iraqi people and why did America support people like Noriega who were terrorising their own populations? Who does Bush think he's kidding?

[Smalso]

RandFan:
My question is now that Bush is announcing the end of the war will he release the detainees. If he doesn't then I think the argument that they are being held unjustly becomes stronger.

Yup and yup.

[Clancie]

originally posted by RandFan
From my post: "Throwing people from 40 different nations into jail--without charges against them, without a trial or hearing, with no end of imprisonment in sight...."

You replied: "And you have been shown why this is not true but you don't care about that do you? That these individuals were fighting and not following the Geneva Convention is of no importance to you."

Where have there been charges against these individuals saying they were "fighting and not following the Geneva Conventions" and that is the legal reason they are being held?

Please provide a link to an official statement from our government explaining the legality of the detention--or at least giving the reasons for all prisoners being there. I haven't seen one.
originally posted by RandFan
My question is now that Bush is announcing the end of the war will he release the detainees. If he doesn't then I think the argument that they are being held unjustly becomes stronger.
Well, the detainees were from the "war" with Afghanistan, which has been "over" for a while now.

Legally speaking, at the conclusion of the war, the Afghan soldiers should have either been released or else formally charged with war crimes. But...Bush apparently feels free to make his own rules...indefinite imprisonment without any charges.....

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Smalso
The U.S. raised holy hell about the way American captives were treated in North Viet Nam. Their answer was that American soldiers were not prisoners of war; they were illegally in Viet Nam and were therefore illegal combatants. Ditto Korea in that skirmish.

Doesn't work. As ceo_esq points out in the next post, the Geneva convention applies to soldiers, even if their is no official declaration of war. (And, the U.S. definitely have a recognized military, command structure, etc.)

Therefore, North Vietnam should have treated the prisoners according to Geneva.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Doesn't work. As ceo_esq points out in the next post, the Geneva convention applies to soldiers, even if their is no official declaration of war. (And, the U.S. definitely have a recognized military, command structure, etc.)

Therefore, North Vietnam should have treated the prisoners according to Geneva.

No argument from me about that. Now, all you have to do is convince North Viet Nam. In their view, the U.S. was a war criminal and not covered by the Geneva Convention. (Not that they would have abided by the Geneva Convention otherwise.)

[CWL]

Originally posted by RandFan
You seem to be arguing both sides of the coin on this one. Why would they choose to hold them in Guantamo for the express purpose of avoiding jurisdiction if there in fact is jurisdiction because it was a former US territory.
My understanding is that there is in fact no US court which believes itself to have jurisdiction over Guantanamo. I believe that applications have been made and rejected due to lack of jurisdiction.

I do understand your question and point though. I will grant you that legal considerations were given in the choice of Guantanamo and that jurisdiction was one of those consideration.
Just for the sake of argument, do you also understand why this might be considered by some people as deliberate denial of justice?

I think the whole thing is a difficult situation. We are trying to stop terrorism and we have captured people in the course of combat. If immediately released they will pose problems for the new government and will continue to fight us. Charging them as criminals causes all sorts of problems that are counter productive to our goals. Holding them as POWs serves a purpose but it limits information gathering. Since they did not fight under the terms of the Geneva Convention we have held them as illegal combatants. They recieve nearly all protections of the Convention but are denied some of its status due to their inability to adhere to its rules.
I understand the argument (and can certainly sympathise in principle). However, I am looking for the precedent or rule to which you seem to be referring. I think we can all agree that there is no principle in international law (or otherwise) which says that you are not obliged to follow the rules because others do not. The question is therefore: which set of rules is the US following in detaining the "illegal combatants"?

There is the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POW:s (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) . There is the Geneva Convention on the treatment of civilians (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm). Where is the convention on this "third category" that we are talking about - and why is it so clear that the Guantanamo detainees do not fall in any of the two aforementioned categories? Have a look at Article 4 of the respective Conventions.

Again - provided that it may be established that the detainees do not fall into any of those categories - where might one find the rules which apply to them?

I understand that some do not like this but I would like to see something more besides the arguments thus far to decide that we are holding the detainees illegaly.
I understand, but let's start with exploring the legal grounds for their detainment a bit further first.

[ceo_esq]

For what it's worth (and I posted this somewhere else recently), one of the editors of The American Journal of International Law has made the following observations:
First, Washington is warranted in considering Al Qaeda irregulars to be "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants who do not qualify as prisoners of war and hence do not enjoy the full privileges of the Third Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda has failed to fulfill four prerequisites of lawful belligerency. These require a responsible commander, a distinctive and visible insignia, the open bearing of arms, and general observance of the laws and customs of war. It is also open to question whether an international terrorist group that does not fight for a sovereign state (but, rather, if anything dominates the state) can ever qualify as a lawful belligerent. Thus, the specification of trial procedures in the Third Geneva Convention would not be applicable as such to Al Qaeda, except arguably for the customary norm reflected in common Article 3 calling for a "regularly constituted court" and the "judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The Taliban also fail to qualify as lawful combatants or prisoners of war, under the tests of the Third Geneva Convention. In particular, they have abetted Al Qaeda's flagrant violation of the laws of war, and this assistance was condemned by the Security Council in Resolution 1373. Any claim that the Taliban are a "regular army" exempted from these qualifying conditions stumbles on the explicit language of the precedent 1907 Hague Rules of Land Warfare and the 1874 Brussels Declaration. It would make little sense to exempt a supposed "army" from the requirement of distinguishing themselves from civilians and reciprocally obeying the laws of war. The Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention notes that these "material characteristics" are prerequisite to even qualifying as "armed forces" and "regular armed forces."

. . .

The criticism by some European allies may stem from their own decision to ratify the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This Protocol dilutes the requirements for lawful belligerency and prisoner-of-war status. But neither Afghanistan nor the United States has ratified Protocol I, and it is implausible to suggest that this sharply contested instrument has become customary law in all its parts. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Protocol I itself apparently preserves the requirement that an armed group generally observe the laws of war in order to qualify as an "armed force."

Source: Ruth Wedgwood, “Al Qaeda, Terrorism, and Military Commissions”, 96 A.J.I.L. 328 (2002).

[CWL]

This report (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030504-3498172.htm) about a letter from Colin Powell to Donald Rumsfeld might be interesting in the context of this thread.

In a strongly worded letter, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urged Pentagon officials to move faster in determining which prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can be released, defense officials said yesterday.

Mr. Powell's April 14 letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld questioned the continued detention of some 660 prisoners from 42 countries who were captured during the war against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

A Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the "strongly worded" letter made it clear that the secretary of state wanted the Defense Department to quickly determine which prisoners could be released.

[a_unique_person]

Sorry to have to tell you this Fool, but it looks like David Hicks isn't wanted back, although the US doesn't want to keep him either.

Part of the problem appears to be that if he is sent back, they will have to let him go, as he has broken no Australian laws.

Now, he isn't a juvenile, but he is one prisoner that was being held for no apparent reason.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987651331.html



The New York Times reported the United States had asked Australia to take back Hicks, but the government was reluctant to do so because Hicks had not violated any Australian law and would have to be released on his return.

Prime Minister John Howard did not discuss Hicks' plight with US president George W Bush saying Attorney-General Daryl Williams was handling the case.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sorry to have to tell you this Fool, but it looks like David Hicks isn't wanted back, although the US doesn't want to keep him either.

Part of the problem appears to be that if he is sent back, they will have to let him go, as he has broken no Australian laws.




Anyone else reminded of "Brazil" where if something happened outside all the standard procedures, then noone knew what to do?