U.S. To Abide By Geneva Conventions For Detainees

[JamesDillon]

Just posted at the New York Times:

Quote:

WASHINGTON, July 11 — In a sweeping change of policy, the Pentagon has decided that it will treat all detainees in compliance with the minimum standards spelled out in the Geneva conventions, a senior defense official said today.

The new policy comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling last month invalidating a system of military tribunals the Pentagon had created to try suspected terrorists, and just before Congress takes up the question of a replacement system in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today.

I'm almost speechless, rather suspicious, but cautiously optimistic. It's a sad comment on the times when America's decision to comply with a provision of international law guaranteeing prisoners of war "a minimum level of rights expected in a civilized country" is big news, but it nevertheless appears to be a positive development. I'll reserve judgment until I see how this is actually implemented in practice, though. We may get another Gonzales memo torturing the Geneva Conventions beyond all recognition.

[BPSCG]

In a sweeping change of policy, Hamas and al Qaeda have decided that they will treat all detainees in compliance with the minimum standards spelled out in the Geneva conventions, senior officials said today.

The new policy is a clear reciprocal move, coming on the heels of the Pentagon's announcement that it will treat all detainees in such manner.

Mehmet Ali Paq-man announced the change in policy: "No longer will we hold hostages at gunpoint, force them to make televised appeals, then saw their heads off. Hostages will now be treated justly. They will be provided clean clothing and shelter, Bibles, and meals consistent with their dietary requirements, meaning Israeli captives will be provided kosher meals, and American captives will be fed pork barbecue, if requested. We will honor visits from the Red Cross and Red Crescent, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). It is well known that Islam is a religion of peace, and now that the American crusader pig dogs have said they will finally treat our prisoners justly, we shall of course reciprocate."

[JamesDillon]

BPSCG, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps our claim to the moral high ground is best supported by the fact that we claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for human rights than al-Qaeda?

[President Bush]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

BPSCG, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps our claim to the moral high ground is best supported by the fact that we claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for human rights than al-Qaeda?

What do you mean "we"?

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

BPSCG, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps our claim to the moral high ground is best supported by the fact that we claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for human rights than al-Qaeda?

No. Our claim to the moral high ground is best supported by the fact that we do hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for human rights than al-Qaeda - and most other countries, to boot.

Interesting... it appears we now have a treaty with al-Qaeda. A treaty they didn't sign, and won't live up to, but which we did, and shall.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

No. Our claim to the moral high ground is best supported by the fact that we do hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for human rights than al-Qaeda - and most other countries, to boot.

That would seem to be undermined by your suggestion above that because al-Qaeda and Hamas refuse to recognize the protocols set forth in the Geneva Conventions, we have no obligation to do so, either.

Quote:

Interesting... it appears we now have a treaty with al-Qaeda. A treaty they didn't sign, and won't live up to, but which we did, and shall.

I prefer to think of it as a unilateral recognition on our part that there are certain things you just don't do to people, simply in virtue of their status as human beings. I seem to recall, somewhere, that some legal document makes reference to the concept of inalienable human rights?

But let's not get snarky about this, at least if we can avoid it. I think you're a pretty smart fellow, despite the fact that I disagree with you about almost everything. I don't think the best argument here has anything to do with the intricacies of international law. The fact is that, the evolving standards of decency in our western Enlightenment tradition hold that some forms of treatment of other human beings are simply unacceptable, period. It doesn't matter whether the people in question would recognize those same limitations on their treatment of you were the roles reversed. Sinking to their level is just not an acceptable option, regardless of how they might act in a similar situation. This obligation is not founded in a contractual obligation; it is a recognition of a moral obligation that exists entirely independently of its acceptance by the other party.

This is what I meant by reference to the moral high ground above. If we were to abandon those principles and adopt the disregard for human life and suffering practiced by our enemies, what reason other than mere nationalism could we offer for preferring ourselves to them?

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

This is what I meant by reference to the moral high ground above. If we were to abandon those principles and adopt the disregard for human life and suffering practiced by our enemies, what reason other than mere nationalism could we offer for preferring ourselves to them?

You make a lot of excellent points here, but let's not forget one thing. We already do treat these people pretty well. Yes, there are cases of abuse, which we typically catch and prosecute, and no, these people don't get the full panoply of Geneva Conventions protections, but they do pretty well. I don't see why they should get the full GC protections if they aren't a signatory to them. Now it's Congress's job to specify what is allowed and what is prohibited - something they've had five years to do, and haven't, being the mostly gutless poltroons they are.

Yes, we treat them better because we are morally better, and we don't want to stoop to their level. But by the same token, we shouldn't forget these are vicious killers who have placed themselves outside the sphere of the normal rules of war. we're giving them the protections we give to civilized people, without having demanded they live up to the responsibilities of civilized people.

[ceo_esq]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

It's a sad comment on the times when America's decision to comply with a provision of international law guaranteeing prisoners of war "a minimum level of rights expected in a civilized country" is big news, but it nevertheless appears to be a positive development.

For the record, the Geneva Conventions do not represent a minimum level of rights in the sense that a lower level would necessarily be uncivilized or indecent. Certain of the Conventions establish standards of treatment for POWs that exceed what are typically accepted as civilized standards for incarcerated individuals generally. A person could receive treatment materially inferior to what the Geneva Conventions require without having his human rights violated.

[Number Six]

Maybe the point BPSCG is trying to make, and if so I agree on this at least, is that even if the US didn't agree to apply the Geneve Convention to Gitmo detaineess it'd still be treating them much better than the other side treats US detainees. In fact, Gitmo detainees could be treat much, much worse than they are and they'd still be treated much, much better than are US detainees.

Now that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't take the high road and treat the Gitmo detainees well but rather that the definition of "low road" and "high road" is much different for the West than it is for Islamic fundamentalists.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by Number Six

Maybe the point BPSCG is trying to make, and if so I agree on this at least, is that even if the US didn't agree to apply the Geneve Convention to Gitmo detaineess it'd still be treating them much better than the other side treats US detainees. In fact, Gitmo detainees could be treat much, much worse than they are and they'd still be treated much, much better than are US detainees.

I think that is BPSCG's point, but for the reasons I explained above, I just don't think that how American prisoners are treated by al-Qaeda is in any way relevant to our own duties to treat our prisoners decently. At the risk of invoking Godwin, think back to a certain other episode in which the United States was engaged in hostilities with a murderous regime that disregarded the moral claims of basic human dignity and universal rights against extreme mistreatment of its prisoners. Would the U.S. have been justified in saying, "Well, as long as we're not quite as bad as they are, anything we do short of that is justified"? I don't think so. This isn't about how we compare to them. This is about how we measure up to our own professed ideals.

ceo_esq makes the valid point that perhaps some of the guarantees of the Geneva Conventions are in excess of the absolute minimum that might arguably be required to meet a bare criterion of fairness. The point is well taken, but I think that our current practice falls far below that bare standard, and compliance with Geneva seems a perfectly reasonable way to ensure that our practices do measure up, while avoiding the need to re-assess every issue in order to feel out some middle ground of appropriate treatment. In any case, I would argue that it's always best to err on the side of more humane treatment.

Quote:

Now that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't take the high road and treat the Gitmo detainees well but rather that the definition of "low road" and "high road" is much different for the West than it is for Islamic fundamentalists.

Again, though, I think that the applicable standard here is that set by our own cultural expectations, and that is not dependent on or relative to the culture or identity of the group with which we are involved in conflict. The fact that American POWs might be tortured or killed by al-Qaeda is simply irrelevant to our own obligation to treat prisoners decently. This obligation is not based on a quid pro quo analysis or any expectation of reciprocity; it is based entirely on our own self-imposed conceptions of justice and morality and the fact that we are not the sort of people who impose inhuman conditions on prisoners. Or at least we shouldn't be.

Edited to correct gross and embarrassing misuse of apostrophe.

[Ziggurat]

I suspect this may turn out to produce unintended consequences. In particular, when dealing with violent Jihadists in, say, Afghanistan, if the target is unlikely to have high intelligence value, the default decision now will probably be to kill, rather than attempt a capture. It's always been easier to do that, but now that we are much more restricted about what we can do with captured terrorists, there is little motivation on the part of our soldiers to do so, nor is there any legal requirement for them to try to capture rather than kill an enemy on the battlefield if that enemy isn't actively surrendering. So the form of how we deal with terrorists is now more "humane" and "enlightened", but if those are the goals, will this actually improve the substance? Quite likely not. The net effect may well be the reverse of what advocates have sought. But hey: out of sight, out of mind.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I suspect this may turn out to produce unintended consequences. In particular, when dealing with violent Jihadists in, say, Afghanistan, if the target is unlikely to have high intelligence value, the default decision now will probably be to kill, rather than attempt a capture. It's always been easier to do that, but now that we are much more restricted about what we can do with captured terrorists, there is little motivation on the part of our soldiers to do so, nor is there any legal requirement for them to try to capture rather than kill an enemy on the battlefield if that enemy isn't actively surrendering. So the form of how we deal with terrorists is now more "humane" and "enlightened", but if those are the goals, will this actually improve the substance? Quite likely not. The net effect may well be the reverse of what advocates have sought. But hey: out of sight, out of mind.

Can't that argument be made in any conflict to which the Geneva Conventions apply? Is there any statistical evidence that the application of Geneva has in past conflicts created an incentive to kill rather than take prisoners on the battlefield?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Can't that argument be made in any conflict to which the Geneva Conventions apply? Is there any statistical evidence that the application of Geneva has in past conflicts created an incentive to kill rather than take prisoners on the battlefield?

Not really. In previous wars, in the context in which the Geneva conventions were written, killing the enemy was already the default action, and simply remained the default action even under the conventions. You accepted surrender when you got it, and because of the conventions you treated those POW's in a certain manner, but surrender was not what soldiers tried for. Because we have such overwhelming force in standup fights, we have had the uncommon luxury of having capture a pretty standard goal.

Furthermore (though this wasn't part of my original argument and not directly part of your question), in previous state-on-state conflicts, the motivation to adhere to the conventions (and the only reason they were ever agreed to in the first place) was that providing protection to surrendering enemy helped protect those of your side who surrendered. The Geneva Conventions are founded on the idea of reciprocity. But no such reciprocity is to be found today in our fight against terrorism.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Not really. In previous wars, in the context in which the Geneva conventions were written, killing the enemy was already the default action, and simply remained the default action even under the conventions.

What makes you think that killing the enemy isn't already the default option? as long as we're talking combat situations at least.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

What makes you think that killing the enemy isn't already the default option? as long as we're talking combat situations at least.

Maybe it is. Even if it is, though, there could still be room for the number of captures to go down significantly.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Not really. In previous wars, in the context in which the Geneva conventions were written, killing the enemy was already the default action, and simply remained the default action even under the conventions. You accepted surrender when you got it, and because of the conventions you treated those POW's in a certain manner, but surrender was not what soldiers tried for. Because we have such overwhelming force in standup fights, we have had the uncommon luxury of having capture a pretty standard goal.

Well, one might also suggest that our acknowledgment of Geneva also creates an incentive for al-Qaeda or Iraqi insurgent fighters to surrender quickly rather than continue fighting, since they know that U.S. troops now have diminished interest in taking them alive absent a clear surrender.

That counterargument is speculative, obviously, but I don't think it's any less speculative than your original suggestion. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't think it's clear how this might play out on the battlefield.

Does anyone with more knowledge of military tactics and/or regulations know if there is any general policy or regulation requiring troops to attempt to take prisoners rather than kill opposing fighters when it is reasonably safe to do so?

Quote:

Furthermore (though this wasn't part of my original argument and not directly part of your question), in previous state-on-state conflicts, the motivation to adhere to the conventions (and the only reason they were ever agreed to in the first place) was that providing protection to surrendering enemy helped protect those of your side who surrendered. The Geneva Conventions are founded on the idea of reciprocity. But no such reciprocity is to be found today in our fight against terrorism.

That's true. My argument that we should respect the principles of decency embodied in the Geneva Conventions even in the absence of reciprocity is fundamentally a moral one. We have no better reason to do so than that, I hope, we hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for life and dignity than does our opponent. I think that reason alone is self-evidently compelling. Some may disagree, in which case I really have nothing further to offer by way of persuasion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Well, one might also suggest that our acknowledgment of Geneva also creates an incentive for al-Qaeda fighters to surrender quickly rather than continue fighting, since they know that U.S. troops now have diminished interest in taking them alive absent a clear surrender.

That counterargument is speculative, obviously, but I don't think it's any less speculative than your original suggestion. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't think it's clear how this might play out on the battlefield.

Sure, that's a fair counter-speculation. My guess is they would only start to surrender more readily if word got around that our troops really were more ready to kill, which would require that our troops spend some time doing more killing first. But not only are we both just speculating, even a few years from now I doubt there will be any definitive way to figure out the effects, since so many other factors are at play too.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

these people don't get the full panoply of Geneva Conventions protections, but they do pretty well.

Please tell us your definition of "doing pretty well".

Quote:

I don't see why they should get the full GC protections if they aren't a signatory to them.

Because the United States is a signatory to them.

Quote:

But by the same token, we shouldn't forget these are vicious killers who have placed themselves outside the sphere of the normal rules of war.

So you say. Unfortunately we can't check that claim.

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

For the record, the Geneva Conventions do not represent a minimum level of rights in the sense that a lower level would necessarily be uncivilized or indecent. Certain of the Conventions establish standards of treatment for POWs that exceed what are typically accepted as civilized standards for incarcerated individuals generally.

We're not talking about treating them as Prisoners of War. The Supreme Court has not decided that they should be treated as such, but rather that they should be treated according to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Those standards do not "exceed what are typically accepted as civilized standards for incarcerated individuals". Far from it.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In particular, when dealing with violent Jihadists in, say, Afghanistan, if the target is unlikely to have high intelligence value, the default decision now will probably be to kill, rather than attempt a capture. It's always been easier to do that

If it has always been easier to do that, please explain what stopped US soldiers from doing that before this decision was made.

Quote:

but now that we are much more restricted about what we can do with captured terrorists, there is little motivation on the part of our soldiers to do so

Please explain what motivation soldiers had before to capture rather than kill terrorists? Were they motivated by knowing those detainees were going to be tortured?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Because the United States is a signatory to them.

Under the Geneva Conventions, a signatory to the treaty that is in conflict with a non-signatory power is bound by the treaty ONLY IF the non-signing power also abides by the restrictions of the treaty. If the non-signatory does not, the treaty frees the signatory from any obligations. My understanding is that the exception is in cases of conflicts of a "non-international character", where the signatory is still bound. "Non-international character" has previously always meant conflicts like civil wars and insurgencies within your own country. The Supreme Court got around this by claiming that our conflict with Al Qaeda is not "international" in character because Al Qaeda is not a nation. I disagree strongly with that interpretation (and so, I think, did at least some of the dissenting justices), but even if you accept it, it's still clear from the conventions themselves that signatories are not always and everywhere bound to the conventions, but are free of them under certain circumstances, and nothing about the Supreme Court ruling actually overturns this.

Quote:

If it has always been easier to do that, please explain what stopped US soldiers from doing that before this decision was made.

Because even low-intelligence-value targets still have some value, and so in some cases a capture will become preferable to a kill even if it takes extra effort. Reduce that value, or increase the liability of the prisoner, and you make such cases rarer. It's really quite simple.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Because the United States is a signatory to them.

The convention states pretty explicitly that it applies only between the signatory states.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because even low-intelligence-value targets still have some value, and so in some cases a capture will become preferable to a kill even if it takes extra effort. Reduce that value, or increase the liability of the prisoner, and you make such cases rarer. It's really quite simple.

If it is so simple, I'm sure you have no trouble explaining it to me... How does this decision reduce the "value" of "low-intelligence-value" targets? If their intelligence is worth something, then it is still worth something, even if you have to treat them better, right? And how does this increase the liability of the prisoner?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I don't see why they should get the full GC protections if they aren't a signatory to them.

[snip]

But by the same token, we shouldn't forget these are vicious killers who have placed themselves outside the sphere of the normal rules of war.

Neither should we forget that not everyone who has been held in Guantanamo Bay is a vivious killer who has placed himself outside the sphere of the normal rules of war. Some are innocent people whose names turned up under torture and others are victims of mistaken identity. Until we do a better job of deciding who to lock up and who not to lock up, I prefer treating all the prisoners better than they have been treated.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Neither should we forget that not everyone who has been held in Guantanamo Bay is a vivious killer who has placed himself outside the sphere of the normal rules of war. Some are innocent people whose names turned up under torture and others are victims of mistaken identity. Until we do a better job of deciding who to lock up and who not to lock up, I prefer treating all the prisoners better than they have been treated.

Well, we know that a number of the ones who were released ended up shooting at us all over again. How many have been released because they were truly, truly innocent bystanders? I hear lots of allegations; give me names and numbers.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

BPSCG, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps our claim to the moral high ground is best supported by the fact that we claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for human rights than al-Qaeda?

Of course it has; it's just the bullets in the foot that hurt.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by Elind

Of course it has; it's just the bullets in the foot that hurt.

I really don't think that the United States will be overrun by militant jihadists if we start recognizing the fundamental legal and human rights of our captives. If you want to argue that recognizing basic rights would seriously undermine our military efforts or national security, feel free to do so, but it sounds more like an excuse than a legitimate source of necessity to me.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

I really don't think that the United States will be overrun by militant jihadists if we start recognizing the fundamental legal and human rights of our captives. If you want to argue that recognizing basic rights would seriously undermine our military efforts or national security, feel free to do so, but it sounds more like an excuse than a legitimate source of necessity to me.

I've never really worried too much about the US in the regard. I was just expressing the opinion that human rights are earned, not god given. Now I recognise that that comment can fill many threads if one wanted to waste a lot of time; but there is a principle aside from "holier than thou" that could be called something like "live in reality". Of course it seems that one reality is that we have to live with the holies too.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Neither should we forget that not everyone who has been held in Guantanamo Bay is a vivious killer who has placed himself outside the sphere of the normal rules of war. Some are innocent people whose names turned up under torture and others are victims of mistaken identity. Until we do a better job of deciding who to lock up and who not to lock up, I prefer treating all the prisoners better than they have been treated.

Firstly, you quote propaganda when you talk about treatment, secondly you pretend to have information of innocence that by definition has not been determined by the very process you claim to demand; namely trial. You know this? No doubt it might be possible, but given the hundreds who have already been released, of which many were clearly guilty by their own subsequent statements and acts (some now dead in action), it seems to me a stretch to claim that you "know" the remaining portion still have innocents.

Your standards of perfection might be laudable in a movie; in reality they are just fantasy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

If it is so simple, I'm sure you have no trouble explaining it to me... How does this decision reduce the "value" of "low-intelligence-value" targets? If their intelligence is worth something, then it is still worth something, even if you have to treat them better, right?

The more they know about the parameters of how we will treat them in the event of capture, the less uncertainty they have during interrogation, and the harder it will be to get intelligence out of them. Uncertainty, by itself, provides enormous leverage, and now they will have much less of it. It will take a longer time and more effort to extract useful information from those we capture. That increases the cost of extracting information, and decreases its usefulness. A lot of information, in fact MOST information, is time-sensitive: if you cannot get it within a certain window, it is no longer useful. It seems to me that you have not thought about these issues before.

Quote:

And how does this increase the liability of the prisoner?

A liability is a cost (as in assets versus liabilities). If it takes more time to interrogate a prisoner, the cost of interrogation is higher. More of a liability, and less of an asset.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Neither should we forget that not everyone who has been held in Guantanamo Bay is a vivious killer who has placed himself outside the sphere of the normal rules of war. Some are innocent people whose names turned up under torture and others are victims of mistaken identity. Until we do a better job of deciding who to lock up and who not to lock up, I prefer treating all the prisoners better than they have been treated.

Originally Posted by Elind

Firstly, you quote propaganda when you talk about treatment,

Are you asserting that there has been no mistreatment of prisoners at all?

Quote:

secondly you pretend to have information of innocence that by definition has not been determined by the very process you claim to demand; namely trial. You know this? No doubt it might be possible, but given the hundreds who have already been released, of which many were clearly guilty by their own subsequent statements and acts (some now dead in action), it seems to me a stretch to claim that you "know" the remaining portion still have innocents.

Your standards of perfection might be laudable in a movie; in reality they are just fantasy.

Apparently I was not clear in my post. (ETA: footnote) I was referring to both prisoners who have been released, but were mistreated before they were released, as well as current prisoners. Over a fifth of of the people held there have been released. Some, but not all, of them have taken up arms against the U.S. and its allies. The remainder were not guilty of any crimes and were detained and denied the rights accorded by the Gen.Conv. An example of innocents being held at one time in Guantanamo are the five Chinese Muslims mentioned in this Christian Science Monitor article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html

Quote:

Five Muslim detainees from China's western Xinjiang province are stranded in a legal no man's land at the US terrorism prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
They shouldn't be there. Even the US military has found that the men, members of the besieged Uighur ethnic group, are not enemy combatants.

ETA: After re-reading my post, I see I should have said "were" instead of "are." I was not trying to claim that I have evidence that any of the remaining prisoners are innocent. I was trying to show that a system that has as many false positives as this sytem does, should take more steps to ensure that all are treated appropriately.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Well, we know that a number of the ones who were released ended up shooting at us all over again. How many have been released because they were truly, truly innocent bystanders? I hear lots of allegations; give me names and numbers.

As I quoted in a previous post:

Quote:

Five Muslim detainees from China's western Xinjiang province are stranded in a legal no man's land at the US terrorism prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
They shouldn't be there. Even the US military has found that the men, members of the besieged Uighur ethnic group, are not enemy combatants.

I am not aware of any of "the Tipton Three" (Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed and Asif Iqbal) committing acts of war against the U.S. after being released to Britain.

So for numbers, a very breif search turns up only eight people which (if my numbers are correct) is less than 2% of those detained. The catch in trying to determine how many people who were released are actually guilty of the original charges is that if innocent persons go home and commits no acts of violence, then they are no longer in the news and it is hard to track them.

.................
As for those that did take up arms against the U.S., I am not positive that such actions are unimpeachable evidence of their original guilt. If I commited no acts of violence and were picked up and held against my will for a couple of years, then I might consider attacking the military forces that unjustly locked me up in the first place.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Well, we know that a number of the ones who were released ended up shooting at us all over again. How many have been released because they were truly, truly innocent bystanders? I hear lots of allegations; give me names and numbers.

The guy whose case ended up in Supreme Court and is the basis of this decision, Hamdan, is alleged to have been Osama's personal driver and body guard.

I think the decision will just force a courts martial instead of a military commission. This might actually work to some benefit, because perhaps we can now try these guys for war crimes. I think it is our government process operating as it was designed to do. It fills me with awe when I see it in action.

I don't believe any of the dirtbags picked up in Afghanistan were just there to pick up a bag of heroin. Taking them prisoners was more of a liability than a strategic aid. We learn more off of their old laptops and cell phones than we do from them. It is my personal, and perhaps cruel, belief that we should have terminated them with extreme prejudice where they stood. Good thing I'm not in charge.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

No. Our claim to the moral high ground is best supported by the fact that we do hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect for human rights than al-Qaeda - and most other countries, to boot.

Interesting... it appears we now have a treaty with al-Qaeda. A treaty they didn't sign, and won't live up to, but which we did, and shall.

Not at all. The Bush administration has just advanced the techniques of torture so that they do not leave any marks. The pain is still experienced.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It seems to me that you have not thought about these issues before.

I'll readily admit that I can't manage to wrap my head around this stuff. Can you provide any evidence for something as vague as 'more uncertainty leads to quicker information', for example from behavioural experiments?

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

The guy whose case ended up in Supreme Court and is the basis of this decision, Hamdan, is alleged to have been Osama's personal driver and body guard.

Yeah, I heard that too.
When did driving and body guarding become a terminate-with-extreme-prejudice sort of crime?

Everybody listen up. DO NOT EVEN THINK OF JAYWALKING AROUND PEPTO!!!

[Cylinder]

To answer the question posed in another thread:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

So many of those held will now, apparently, be held officially as POWS, if I read this right.

No - it only applies Common Article 3 per the DoD memorandum [PDF]:

Quote:

The Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with al Qaeda. The Court found that military commissions as constituted by the Department of Defense are not consistent with Common Article 3.

It is my understanding that, aside from the military commission procedure, existing DoD orders policies, directives, execute orders, and doctrine comply with the standards of Common Article 3 and, therefore, actions by DoD personnel that comply with such issuances would comply with the standards of Common Article 3. [Cylinder: I have edited out specific references to DoD products for brevity. See full text.]

You will ensure that all DoD personnel adhere to these standards. In this regard, I request that you promptly review all relevant directives, regulations, policies, practices and procedures under your purview to ensure that they comply with the standards of Common Article 3.[Cylinder: I have edited out specific reply procedures here. See full text.]

Since the original PDF is in the form of a single embedded image, I had to transcribe the contents myself - hence the edits in the quoted section. Common Article 3 states:

Quote:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by fishbob

When did driving and body guarding become a terminate-with-extreme-prejudice sort of crime?

Can you cite a specification or indictment that asserts "driving" and "body guarding" as the crimes charged?

[Zep]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Well, we know that a number of the ones who were released ended up shooting at us all over again. How many have been released because they were truly, truly innocent bystanders? I hear lots of allegations; give me names and numbers.

This is based on the assumption that they MUST be let go prior to the end of hostilities. The Geneva convention does not require this to happen for POWs, as I'm sure you know. In fact, POWs can be held legally for the duration (i.e. fairly indefinitely). What is more, they can be subject to prosecution for war crimes. And...isn't this what you have been advocating for the current prisoners all along??

Are you having trouble quitting while you are ahead? Or are you here for the full 60 minute argument...

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Are you asserting that there has been no mistreatment of prisoners at all?

We know that stuff happens. The worst has been quite damaging to us. That happens in prisons at home too, in every country. Nobody in their right mind, like me, would ever pretend that perfection is expected.

What I do assert is that people have different definitions of mistreatment, and that ALL terrorists and, for that matter most civilian criminals, in prison protest their innocence in some way. We don't release them as a result.

:shrug: Islamic fanatics, they are easy to recognize, get no sympathy or benefit of doubt from me. Sorry.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Elind

We know that stuff happens. The worst has been quite damaging to us. That happens in prisons at home too, in every country. Nobody in their right mind, like me, would ever pretend that perfection is expected.

There is a difference between prisoners beating other prisoners to death and the jailers beating someone to death (moving from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Grahib).

Quote:

What I do assert is that people have different definitions of mistreatment,...

Sticking with Abu Grahib, I think everyone can agree that beating someone to death is mistreatment.

Quote:

...and that ALL terrorists and, for that matter most civilian criminals, in prison protest their innocence in some way. We don't release them as a result.

:shrug: Islamic fanatics, they are easy to recognize, get no sympathy or benefit of doubt from me. Sorry.

No sympathy? Not even for the Islamic fanatics that do not commit acts of violence?

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Well, we know that a number of the ones who were released ended up shooting at us all over again. How many have been released because they were truly, truly innocent bystanders? I hear lots of allegations; give me names and numbers.

It seems rather disingenuous to, on one hand, deny the right of these accused combatants to legal counsel or criminal trial, and then on the other to argue that because they had no trial, we can't be sure that any of them are innocent. You're trying to shift the burden of proof here-- under ordinary principles of law, I think we're required to assume that they're all innocent until proven otherwise.

Let me hasten to clarify that, no, I don't actually believe they're all innocent, nor should we just let potentially dangerous terrorists go free. But holding hundreds of people in confinement for years on end, with no legal recourse or means of challenging that detention, and then arguing that such treatment is justified because we don't know that any of them aren't dangerous terrorists seems like a classic Catch 22.

Principles of due process aren't just legal technicalities. They represent our best efforts at institutionalized fairness. The assumption of guilt by association does not comport with those principles.

Originally Posted by Elind

No doubt it might be possible, but given the hundreds who have already been released, of which many were clearly guilty by their own subsequent statements and acts (some now dead in action), it seems to me a stretch to claim that you "know" the remaining portion still have innocents.

This is a non sequitur. How can actions taken after release prove anything about guilt or innocence of a crime allegedly committed before confinement? One of the chief criticisms of U.S. strategy in the War on Terror is that it has a tendency to create more terrorists. Frankly, if I was a goat herder in Afghanistan, minding my own business, and was picked up and shipped off to Guantanamo for three years, I'd be pretty pissed off when I got out, too. My point here is that detainees' actions after they have been released is inconclusive as to their status before they were detained.

Originally Posted by Elind

I've never really worried too much about the US in the regard. I was just expressing the opinion that human rights are earned, not god given.

Well, I wouldn't use the phrase "God given," but I disagree strongly with this statement. I prefer the view of the Declaration of Independence, that such rights are self-evidently inalienable for all persons. Is the good fortune to have been born an American a way of "earning" rights? That seems to be what you're suggesting.

Quote:

Now I recognise that that comment can fill many threads if one wanted to waste a lot of time; but there is a principle aside from "holier than thou" that could be called something like "live in reality". Of course it seems that one reality is that we have to live with the holies too.

This "live in reality" standard seems like an excuse to sink to whatever levels of degeneracy we find politically expedient. There is always the temptation to disregard the high-minded ideals about human rights that have evolved over the past centuries, but in doing so we risk eroding our own committment to a robust respect for the rights of human beings simply as human beings. This isn't only about protecting prisoners from excessive abuse; it's also about protecting Americans from the darker side of our own human nature. The reports coming out of Abu Ghraib and Haditha are classic examples of what can happen when those controls are not maintained. Obviously one feels sympathy for the Iraqi victims, but I think that the young Americans involved in a system that allowed or even encouraged them to indulge their more barbaric impulses are also, in some ways, worthy of sympathy.