News Pentagon Gags Aussies: US Free Society Double-Standards

[hughes johnson]

BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

This is the way that American POWs have always been treated. It didn't seem to bother Jane Fonda.

 

[Nereid]

This is the way that American POWs have always been treated. It didn't seem to bother Jane Fonda.

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?) and are making up the rules as they go along.

IIRC, there are no US citizens held at Gitmo for precisely the reason that that would allow a serious and expedited challenge before the Supreme Court, and the treatment meted out to such citizens would immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

Without any US citizens in Gitmo, Bush&Co are relatively unfettered.

I'll be the first to admit a lack of understanding of the US Constitution, so this may be quite inappropriate (my emphasis): "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

 

[kat]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?)

Neried-Unlawful combatant is not a new concept..it is an old concept..based upon precedence set with Ex Parte Quirin ...during the WW2 era...specificly 1942..I think.. ...that's pretty darn old, dontcha think?

 

[Adam]

Yet, amazingly, the law remains the same, as has been shown before. Those people are POWs.

 

[kat]

Yet, amazingly, the law remains the same, as has been shown before. Those people are POWs.

Your constant repeating of this lie does not make it true.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The WWII case involved German infiltrators who were landed on Long Island, I believe it was, from a submarine. They were quickly captured, all wearing civilian clothes. One of them had been born in the US and so was a US citizen. They were tried and convicted; the citizen's case went to the Supreme Court and was decided against him, and he was executed along with the others. It was determined that they were not prisoners of war because, among other things, they were not wearing uniforms. What they were was spies, and spies have never been part of the Laws of War.

At the hearings in the Supreme Court yesterday, according to Dahlia Lithwick's account in Slate, several justices seemed uncomfortable with the simple extension of the 1942 decision to the present day. One of them noted that the German infiltrators did get a real trial in an ordinary courtroom.

 

[kat]

a little mix up

Self adjoint-
You have the two cases mixed up. O'conner was referencing Eisentrager 1950. The Germans in that particular case were caught, tried and convicted by a military trial in China. And although they did get a trial..it was not as you seem to infer...The court found that the prior rejection of their petition for a hearing was correct and that they had no immunity from military trial or punishment.
The case concerning the German Infiltrators was Ex Parte Quirin in 1942.

 

[pelastration]

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

... within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. They fly in on US planes ... thus within standard US jurisdiction ... then dropped on a spot again out of that jurisdiction.

 

[Adam]

Once again... the law:

I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding POWs. Thus I supply again this information:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1.[/color] Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2.[/color] Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

• (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  
• (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
  
• (c) That of carrying arms openly;
  
• (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3.[/color] Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4.[/color] Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5.[/color] Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1.[/color] Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2.[/color] The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Once again, in terms of pure logic: POW = A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2[/color]

This Boolean statement shows precisely which are POWs.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?) and are making up the rules as they go along.

IIRC, there are no US citizens held at Gitmo for precisely the reason that that would allow a serious and expedited challenge before the Supreme Court, and the treatment meted out to such citizens would immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

Without any US citizens in Gitmo, Bush&Co are relatively unfettered.

I'll be the first to admit a lack of understanding of the US Constitution, so this may be quite inappropriate (my emphasis): "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

There you go: bring out the Constitution and suddenly things become crystal clear:
"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

if Gitmo is the jurisdiction of the state, (what other jurisdiction is it possibly under!) what they're doing is unconstitutional. BTW, there was one US citizen held in Gitmo, but as soon as they found out his nationality they sent him out, so I've heard.

 

[Adam]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

 

[kat]

There you go: bring out the Constitution and suddenly things become crystal clear:
"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

if Gitmo is the jurisdiction of the state, (what other jurisdiction is it possibly under!) what they're doing is unconstitutional. BTW, there was one US citizen held in Gitmo, but as soon as they found out his nationality they sent him out, so I've heard.

What state is Gitmo a jurisdiction of?
Who was the citizen? I don't think there was ..John Lindh was not brought to Cuba.

 

[Nereid]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'

 

[pelastration]

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'

These guys - for sure not kind and fully innocent people - are the show-case that the 'war' is not over. They are shown form time to time like red monkey's in 'zoo'-conditions. Animals. That's the picture the administration tells implicite. "But ... see we bring them to justice ...". Except - as far as we know - there are in that zoo no female spieces. Maybe some of Cheney's friends can organize tourist tours to observe them and take photo's. And throw peanuts. Imagine ... eye in eye with real terrorists. Yeah, I forgot the Love boats. Bring them on!

 

[russ_watters]

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'

I actually think Adam is right on this one: territory under lease (bases, embassies, etc.) are under federal jurisdiction.

I don't think there are any jurisdictional issues here, but keeping them at Gitmo avoids the issue altogether. Plus there is the practical benefit of keeping them on an isolated military base away from meddling hippies.

As far as the status of these prisoners, we've had the discussion before and Adam is still wrong: they are illegal combatants, not POWs. Adam provided the relevant part of the Geneva convention that shows this quite explicitly. Adam knows this too, since being a member of the Australian military, he certainly would have been issued a Geneva Convention ID card and been briefed on what it means and how to be eligible for Geneva Convention protection (things like you must be a uniformed, open combatant). He was likely even briefed on what happens to special operations troops in combat: depending on the mission, they may not necessarily be covered under the Geneva Convention.

But let's get right to the point: Adam, tell me which one of those 8 criteron the prisoners at 'Gitmo meet.

 

[Adam]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

 

[Adam]

As far as the status of these prisoners, we've had the discussion before and Adam is still wrong: they are illegal combatants, not POWs.

Russ_waters, I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided.

 

[hughes johnson]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs.

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

Here is how I spell hypocrisy:
When someone is aware that these "various conventions and protocols" have not been applied to American POWs, and says nothing, and then complains that these same "various conventions and protocols" are not afforded to terrorist illegal combatants, who are our enemies, that is EXACTLY how I would spell hypocrisy.

It would be a very good idea for you to talk to an American POW. If you can find one who will tell you his story, make sure that you're sitting down. I assure you, you will NEVER forget it.

 

[hughes johnson]

I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided.

The laws do fit. These terrorists are illegal combatants. In other words "you're just wrong!". I think that maybe you might have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[Adam]

hughes johnson, please read the laws again. Then again, and maybe a few more times. The laws specifically identify those who are considered POWs.

 

[hughes johnson]

It's interesting that WW2 vets would say this about Gitmo setting a precedent when the precedent was set because of a case involving German combatants during the ww2 era.

You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of legal precedent. This doesn't necessarily mean that you have a learning disability. A careful reading of kat's posts may help you understand better. Be patient, it will come to you after a while.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ_waters, I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided.

I did explain it (or rather, I asked a pointed question) - you just ignored that part. Again -

Its quite simple: none of those 8 criterion you posted apply to the prisoners. If you disagree, tell me which one applies (I already asked...).

For example, #1 - they are not members of any armed force. I could go through all 8, but save me some time: which one (or 2 or 3) do you think applies?

The laws specifically identify those who are considered POWs.

Yes, again, on this we agree. However, by corollary, they exclude anyone who does not fit the criterion. So again: tell me which one of those specific criterion apply in this specific case.

 

[Adam]

Okay. This has all been covered before, several times. But since you are too lazy to do the background reading to support your statements, here goes again...

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

They fall into this category.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

* (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* (c) That of carrying arms openly;
* (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Many fall into this category.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Many fall into this category.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

They do not fall into this category.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

They do not fall into this category.

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

Whether they followed the laws of war must be examined on the basis of individual instances/prisoners, so we'll count this one out for the sake of charity to those who can't read the laws.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

Many fall into this category.

Now, once again, a POW is: A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2

The people in Guantanimo qualify as A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+B1

Thus, they are POWs, whether the USA government admits it or not. They signed the laws. They (the USA government) are currently breaking the law.

 

[kat]

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

Taliban may count as the armed forces but as they have been recognized as POW's by the U.S. this post is not relevant to them.

as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

The Al Queda may fall under this but in order to be recognized as POW's they must fall under:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

* (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* (c) That of carrying arms openly;
* (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Queda does not fulfil these conditions.

 

[Adam]

Now, once again, a POW is: A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2. In other words, a prisoner need only fit ONE of those to be a POW.

The people in Guantanimo qualify as A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+B1.

 

[kat]

Now, once again, a POW is: A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2. In other words, a prisoner need only fit ONE of those to be a POW.

The people in Guantanimo qualify as A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+B1.

The Al Queda being kept at Guantanimo do not qualify under
A1. They are not "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. "
I'm not sure why you keep claiming they are..maybe you can explain...

under
A2 they must fulfil a, b, c, and d...they might, with a very loose interpretation fullfil :
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
They did not follow
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
They did not follow
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
They most certainly did not follow:
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
I don't know how you can disagree..if so, please explain...skipping what you've already typed repeatedly as it's obviously not getting us anywhere.

A3...you're not seriously suggesting that Al Qaeda fits under this?! "(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power"

B1...You'll have to explain how you think Al Queda fits under this one as well "(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country," ...

 

[Adam]

First, riddle me this: Are they all members of Al Qaeda?

 

[kat]

First, riddle me this: Are they all members of Al Qaeda?

My understanding is that members of the Taliban who were granted POW status are not held at Gitmo, Iraqis are not held at Gitmo... I have not heard of any others being held there today.


Now, could you please respond to my post above. Thanks.

 

[Njorl]

I think this debate, are they POW's or illegal combatants, is not the issue. They have been labelled illegal combatants, and denied any avenue to appeal that labelling. While I can understand doing this in the short term, while information they have could be devastating if it is released, in the long term it is not defensible.

The Bush administration seems to be arguing that an illegal combatant has no right to try to prove that he is not an illegal combatant. This is circular reasoning. If it is allowed to stand, we must assume that the executive branch of the US government can indefinitely detain anyone in the world. I would rather live in a world slightly more prone to terrorism than accept that.

Njorl

 

[Adam]

1) The abductees held at Guantanamo Bay are not all Al Qaeda. There has never even been any charge related to them all being Al Qaeda.

2) Many are members of the Taliban. Many of those were forced to fight for the Taliban. The Taliban (pay attention here please) is not Al Qaeda.

3) Members of the Taliban, the Mujahadeen, and other military and paramilitary forces fit into the first condition of the law in question.

4) Just about anyone receiving military training and working in a military organisation, for a power recognised or not recognised by other states, fits into A3.

 

[kat]

4) Just about anyone receiving military training and working in a military organisation, for a power recognised or not recognised by other states, fits into A3.

A3 specificly speaks of "Members of regular armed forces", I believe they specificly outlined the definition for this at the Hague, but...in order to be clear how are you defining this and where did you derive your definition from?

I'll get to the rest of your post once this is clarified.



Njorl, Although I agree with you, I'm going to continue with this debate because this has been an ongoing issue with this guy. It'd be nice to clarify it once and for all.


*Edit: Is "abductees" even a real word?

 

[pelastration]

The Bush administration seems to be arguing that an illegal combatant has no right to try to prove that he is not an illegal combatant. This is circular reasoning. If it is allowed to stand, we must assume that the executive branch of the US government can indefinitely detain anyone in the world.

Good points.
Indeed circular.
Anyone, yes: based on 'national interest' of USA ... worldwide.

And even posting on PF could be interpreted as being against US national interest.

 

[kat]

Njorl, you may find this interesting. http://www.fed-soc.org/Laws%20of%20war/enemycomb.pdf (Adam would probably do well to read it as well, but that brings us into the wrong tree---barking thing and I'm just not in the mood)

 

[Adam]

"Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

 

[Adam]

Abductee: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abductee

 

[Adam]

Well, I've answered questions. They aren't all Al Qaeda. They fit the defintions of POWs. Now tell me specifically why you think they don't.

 

[pelastration]

When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?

 

[Nereid]

When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?

Ah the joys and delights of the English language (or is it just the US variant?)!

Bush&Co seem keen to invoke stern images, prepare the world for general nastiness and sacrifice, etc ... for which purpose the word 'war' is well suited.

However, the word carries baggage, such as 'casualties of war', 'fog of war', 'war bonds' (should we expect some soon I wonder?), ... and 'POWs'.

But as kat et al point out, Bush&Co don't mean a 'lawful war', even though they have 'declared war' (for sure though, it's an 'awful war').

And so on ...

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Supreme Court has (unwisely as I believe) extended the term "war" and the legal strictures associated with it to whatever the president asserts, rather than the constitutional meaning, which can only be declared by an act of Congress.

 

[kat]

Lalalalalala

1)
4) Just about anyone receiving military training and working in a military organisation, for a power recognised or not recognised by other states, fits into A3.

A3 specificly speaks of "Members of regular armed forces", I believe they specificly outlined the definition for this at the Hague, but...in order to be clear how are you defining this and where did you derive your definition from?

I'll get to the rest of your post once this is clarified.



*Edit: Is "abductees" even a real word?

"Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

Note...I specificly asked for the source of your definition of "regular armed forces".

Abductee: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abductee

*Edit: Is "abductees" even a real word?

Abductees

No entry found for abductees.

LalaLalaLala

 

[kat]

When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?

I think this actually is a whole nother can o' worms. Their status as POW"S depends on whether they fit within the outlines that I listed above. They don't stop being POW's becuase of the type of war it is. The issue arises when you have a war that is not against a state, and in which an end is not neccesarily easily defined. POW's can be held until the war ceases without charges as they are not being held for criminal purposes but to prevent them from further fighting in the war. Normally once a halt to the war has been called they would be released/returned.

 

[kat]

The Supreme Court has (unwisely as I believe) extended the term "war" and the legal strictures associated with it to whatever the president asserts, rather than the constitutional meaning, which can only be declared by an act of Congress.

Uhhh..not exactly, again I suggest you look at past precedence.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks, kat - you picked up nicely where I left off. I had a busy weekend.

Njorl - you have a good point. I don't think there is any precident (national or international) on that though. How exactly would you go about asserting Geneva Convention protection? The Red Cross has been into see these guys. Did anyone attempt to assert POW status then? Perhaps by showing their Geneva Convention ID cards...?

I don't think many of those guys have a leg to stand on when it comes to asserting status. To clarify my position though, I would much prefer that satus hearings/trials be held quickly.

 

[russ_watters]

More on ID cards. HERE is the complete text of the 3rd Geneva Convention (revised 1949). Article 17 states:

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

Clearly, this complicates any claim that the people at 'Gitmo should be afforded POW status.

 

[Adam]

Note...I specificly asked for the source of your definition of "regular armed forces".

Regular armed forces are members of a conventional military organisation serving a command structure which may or may not be recognised by the detaining power.

Abductees
LalaLalaLala

You are familiar with something called the English lanaguage, yes? "Abductee" is a noun. The plural form is "abductees".