News Rebuff for Bush on civil liberties

[Adam]

THE Bush administration may be forced to rethink its war on terrorism strategy after two US courts ruled yesterday that detainees should not remain indefinitely in a legal twilight zone.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8218275%255E401,00.html

Well, now that a US court has agreed with what the world has been saying for two years...

 

[GENIERE]

These decisions will be tested in the Supreme Court so it’s an open issue at this time. My personal position is that all non-military US citizens must have a speedy, open trial, and access to an attorney irrespective of his crime. The burden of proof must be on the government. Some specific evidence and testimony may need to be presented in secrecy.

Those presumed terrorists held in Guantánamo Bay present a more complex issue. I think they cannot be held indefinitely; perhaps after three years be tried in open court with some restriction on evidence. If released they could, should they desire, sue the US government, with the US picking up the tab.

 

[Jonathan]

Unfortunatly, I am not well informed on Guantanamo Bay, but from what I've heard recently I'd have to agree that it is ridiculus. To hold someone captive, indefinitly, without charging them sounds like abduction to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Its a tough issue. POW's get held until the end of a war.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its a tough issue. POW's get held until the end of a war.

What POWs?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
What POWs?

Those prisoners could be granted POW status. It would be a step of from where they are now.

 

[Adam]

You seemed to be saying that those people in Cuba should be imprisoned until the end of this alleged war (against an indefinite enemy, for an indefinite period, with indefinite goals), because they are POWs. Which is odd, since they are not POWs.

 

[Njorl]

The case of the the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is difficult. There are no clear rules laid out by international law for their treatment.

The case of Jose Padilla is one-sided and obvious. In 1971 the US congress repealed the law allowing the president to confine US citizens for national security purposes. They then passed a law specifically forbidding it. It will be interesting to see what kind of balloon animal Nino Scalia ties the Constitution into to justify supporting the president on this one.

Njorl

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Njorl
The case of the the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is difficult. There are no clear rules laid out by international law for their treatment.

Actually there ARE clear laws laid out regarding the treatment of POWs. That's why the USA refuses to admit they are POWs. The whole rest of the world says they are POWs. The fact is, only military might allows the USA to get away with this crap.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
You seemed to be saying that...

My point (from my first sentence) is that its a difficult issue. Njorl does a good job explaining further.

Actually there ARE clear laws laid out regarding the treatment of POWs. That's why the USA refuses to admit they are POWs. The whole rest of the world says they are POWs. The fact is, only military might allows the USA to get away with this crap.

[bold added] Thats strange - you seem to be contradicting your last post:

You seemed to be saying that those people in Cuba should be imprisoned until the end of this alleged war (against an indefinite enemy, for an indefinite period, with indefinite goals), because they are POWs. Which is odd, since they are not POWs.

[bold added]

Perhaps (as usual it seems), this issue is just a tad more complicated than you have considered.

 

[Adam]

Geez, russ, think abou it. When I said they are not POWs, I was pointing out the idiocy of the situation. They ARE POWs.

And no, it is not that complicated. They are being held in tiny wire cages, without charge, without legal representation. They should be released.

And no, they will not receive fair trials. Convictions (they won't even bother with charges, they'll just convict them of some unspecified crime) will be given so there is a justification for having kept them locked away so long.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
Geez, russ, think abou it. When I said they are not POWs, I was pointing out the idiocy of the situation. They ARE POWs.

And no, it is not that complicated. They are being held in tiny wire cages, without charge, without legal representation. They should be released.

Well in that case, this is two contradictions then. If they are POWs then they can be held until hostilities end. And if they are/should be POWs, then they are not entitled to legal representation.

You're picking and choosing contradicting parts of the various statuses. You can't have it both ways - and there are more than just two possible choices. They are currently being held as illegal combatants, a status below that of POWs or criminals.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Adam

And no, they will not receive fair trials. Convictions (they won't even bother with charges, they'll just convict them of some unspecified crime) will be given so there is a justification for having kept them locked away so long.

Actually, quite a few have just been released with admissions from the US that they were wrongly interned. Evidently they had been accused of things by vindictive people in Afghanistan for personal reasons, and the claims had not been well investigated. No recompense to them has been proposed as far as I can tell. The US has simply admitted error and released them.

While I find this despicable, it does belie Adam's paranoid, hateful anti-American prophecies that the prisoners will be convicted without trials to post-justify their internment.

The Guantanamo prisoners should at least have some recourse to clarify their standing. It is entirely possible that there is a mix of genuine POWs, illegal combatants, international criminals, and totally innocent non-comabtants in the camps. If there are individual cases in which national security concerns are deemed to outweigh an individual's rights, those concerns must be entered into an evidentiary record, and the ones making the decision to abridge the individual's rights must be noted, so they can be held responsible if they are found to have acted unjustly. Secrecy and justice are not entirely incompatible.

Njorl

 

[Adam]

russ_waters, you have no idea. Follow the bouncing ball.

1) The prisoners ARE prisones of war.

2) The USA says they are not POWs.

3) POWs are entitled to independent inspection, and their treatment to independent review.

4) The USA refuses to allow any independent intervention.

5) There is no such thing as "illegal combatant" or "unlawful combatant" or whatever doublespeak crap Bush has labelled them.

If you wish to learn what legal status those people should have, read the law that matters: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm However, the USA is going against an international law they signed up for by not following this.

 

[Zero]

My question is : why NOT confer POW status on the gtmo prisoners?

 

[Adam]

Njorl

The US has simply admitted error and released them.

Fantastic. When will we see the rest of them released? Or will the others face the future I predicted? Will those who were abducted and illegally imprisoned for two years have the opportunity to sue the US government for what has happened to them?

While I find this despicable, it does belie Adam's paranoid, hateful anti-American prophecies that the prisoners will be convicted without trials to post-justify their internment.

1) My words might be considered hateful and based on emotion had I not provided evidence at every turn. Read and learn.

2) I find it pathetic that the first resort of the patriot is to attack any criticism with emotional outburts and accusations of bigotry, rather than discussing the pertinent material.

The Guantanamo prisoners should at least have some recourse to clarify their standing. It is entirely possible that there is a mix of genuine POWs, illegal combatants, international criminals, and totally innocent non-comabtants in the camps.

There is no such thing as a Bushspeak "illegal combatant". Read the law I have provided.

 

[amp]

Wow, the question is begged...

What is legal combat? Russ? When conditions deteriorate so far that combat occurs, hasn't legality exited the arena?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by amp
What is legal combat? Russ? When conditions deteriorate so far that combat occurs, hasn't legality exited the arena?

A legal combatant is a uniformed member of a nation's armed forces. They are required by the Geneva Convention to carry an ID card indicating their status as soldiers.
For more detail:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

1) The prisoners ARE prisones of war.

2) The USA says they are not POWs.

3) POWs are entitled to independent inspection, and their treatment to independent review.

4) The USA refuses to allow any independent intervention.

5) There is no such thing as "illegal combatant" or "unlawful combatant" or whatever doublespeak crap Bush has labelled them.

#1 contradicts your statements that they should be released.

3 and 4 are wrong: the Red Cross has visited them.

5 - addressed above. (note the list of countries that recognizes the term - there may be some familiar ones there)

Originally posted by Zero
My question is : why NOT confer POW status on the gtmo prisoners?

They have been granted most of the rights of POWs. The difficulty though is in defining the war they are POWs of. If its the "war on terror" then Afghanis should be sent back to Afghanistan or the Hague or Washington to stand trial for applicable crimes. For guys from other countries it gets a lot tougher since as the law indicates you can hold them until the end of the war. But this is a tough war to define.

One thing is for sure though: they are not automatically entitled to POW status because they are illegal combatants.

 

[Zero]

Just a general rule of thumb: never trust anyone who wants to limit the rights of groups of people they don't agree with. If things are on the up and up, there is no reason not to play by the rules that allow the most rights to people. I still don't understand what rights it is important for the U.S. to deny prisoners. Should they not have access to a court, at least, to clarify their status?

 

[Jonathan]

As I've said before, I don't know enough about international law, so I'm avoiding the main topic to say that I disagree with this:

Just a general rule of thumb: never trust anyone who wants to limit the rights of groups of people they don't agree with.

The rule of thumb is: Never allow the continued existence of anyone/group who limits the rights of any other one/group only because they disagree.
It doesn't matter what the former wants to do unless there is reason to believe they will. If the former does limit the rights of anyone/group for a just reason, then it might be justified to limit their rights depending on how they do it and to what extent.

 

[Adam]

russ_waters

A legal combatant is a uniformed member of a nation's armed forces. They are required by the Geneva Convention to carry an ID card indicating their status as soldiers.

While I respect the effort you went to in going to the almighty wikipedia, you're just plain wrong again. An enemy combatant is:

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

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

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

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

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.

2. 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.

 

[Adam]

russ_waters

Now on to other matters...

#1 contradicts your statements that they should be released.

Dude, please think more before typing. The POWs are POWs. From an illegal invasion. They should not have been abducted in the first place. They are currently POWs, and they should be released because the USA conducted an illegal invasion and is basically in the wrong.

3 and 4 are wrong: the Red Cross has visited them.

Are you telling me the US military has allowed an independent review by a party conforming to the Protecting Powers section of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and that the US military has acted upon the recommendations of that party as it has agreed to? Strange, because to me it looks like those guys are still sitting there in wire cages...

5 - addressed above.

Likewise, addressed above. You're wrong.

They have been granted most of the rights of POWs.

Most, huh? Which rights have they been granted? And why should they not be granted all such rights, according to a law the USA agreed to abide by?

The difficulty though is in defining the war they are POWs of.

Again, read the laws in question. There is no difficulty at all in defining this problem. Here it is:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the 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.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

One thing is for sure though: they are not automatically entitled to POW status because they are illegal combatants.

You didn't read the laws I provided. There's no such thing as an "illegal combatant". Stop listening to Bush's five minute hate sessions, and start paying attention to the facts. Once again, because you clearly did not read the material I provided, please read the stuff in my previous post about status of combatants.

 

[amp]

Uh... Adam...

Maybe they are not POWs from the info on the illagality of the innvasion ... they sound more like kidnap victims *gasp*

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
Now on to other matters...


Dude, please think more before typing. The POWs are POWs. From an illegal invasion. They should not have been abducted in the first place. They are currently POWs, and they should be released because the USA conducted an illegal invasion and is basically in the wrong.


Are you telling me the US military has allowed an independent review by a party conforming to the Protecting Powers section of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and that the US military has acted upon the recommendations of that party as it has agreed to? Strange, because to me it looks like those guys are still sitting there in wire cages...


Likewise, addressed above. You're wrong.


Most, huh? Which rights have they been granted? And why should they not be granted all such rights, according to a law the USA agreed to abide by?


Again, read the laws in question. There is no difficulty at all in defining this problem. Here it is:



You didn't read the laws I provided. There's no such thing as an "illegal combatant". Stop listening to Bush's five minute hate sessions, and start paying attention to the facts. Once again, because you clearly did not read the material I provided, please read the stuff in my previous post about status of combatants.

This is probably one of the clearest explanations of the legal stance on POW's and Unlawful combatants...from a legal standpoint. It also explains the pro's and cons of POW status versus Unlawful Combatant status and why Bush may have chose the designation he did. It also goes into the possible differences between the Taliban status and that of the AQ. I strongly suggest both you and Zero read it.
WHAT IS AN "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT," AND WHY IT MATTERS:

 

[Adam]

Kat

Originally posted by kat
This is probably one of the clearest explanations of the legal stance on POW's and Unlawful combatants...from a legal standpoint.

It's a rather crappy explanation really. Why? Let's look at the guy's misrepresentation of the Geneva Convention:

The criteria are: "(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; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

In fact, the criteria for being a combatant in a conflict are:

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.[/color]

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict[/color] 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;[/color] (In other words, they must be organised, with commanders and all.)

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (No mention of what that sign must be.)

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

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

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

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

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

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.

2. 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.

Now, as described in part 3, all it takes is for these people to be members of a regular armed force, which does not have to be recognised as legitimate by the invaders. No other consideration is necessary. If they are members of an organised military force, they fall under this act as combatants. The author of the article you linked to conveniently forgot to mention this.

 

[kat]

"fulfil the following conditions"
not a few of the conditions, not one or two of the conditons...not only the conditions that ADAM chooses to be relevant but "the following conditions"

The findlaw article covers those which were not covered, how and why they are relevent.

2b and 2d are particlulary relevent.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
...you're just plain wrong again. An enemy combatant is:

Well, let me see - there's under command, uniformed, displaying arms openly, obeying the laws of war, civilians who take up arms while obeying the above laws, civilians who accompany armed forces in support roles, etc.

Could you please point me specifically to the portion that discusses airline hijackers, suicide bombers, and other terrorists? It must be in there, but I guess I missed it.

They are currently POWs, and they should be released because the USA conducted an illegal invasion and is basically in the wrong.

Illegal invasion? In the wrong? Says who? I guess I missed the UN resolution that said that - could you quote it for me please? In any case, its not relevant to the issue - a pow has the same status regardless of the legality of the war and as such is held until the end of hostilities. You quoted the relevant passage later in that post, ironically enough.

Are you telling me the US military has allowed...

Again. The Red Cross is the organization in question and they HAVE visited the POWs and affirmed they are being treated humanely. Linky: http://www.redcross.org/news/in/intllaw/guantanamo1.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20031010/red_cross_guantanamo_031010/CTVNewsAt11?s_name=
The second link says essentially the Red Cross's only complaint is that the prisoners are upset about not knowing their fate, indicating their physical treatment is humane (otherwise they would have said what was not humane about it).

Strange, because to me it looks like those guys are still sitting there in wire cages...

First, I again must have missed this part of the Geneva Convention. Could you quote the part that specifically says that they can't be held in such a manner?

Second, you must have missed it, but they have built an actual prison there.

Most, huh? Which rights have they been granted? And why should they not be granted all such rights, according to a law the USA agreed to abide by?

Again, the US has decided not to grant them POW status under the same reasoning that YOUR COUNTRY uses.

There's no such thing as an "illegal combatant".

Again - YOUR GOVERNMENT seems to think there is. Inconvenient for you I know, but its something you can't ignore.

It's a rather crappy explanation really. Why? Let's look at the guy's misrepresentation of the Geneva Convention:

Maybe its a reading comprehension problem then - the guy used DIRECT QUOTES of the four criteria and you highlighted the wrong thing.

Now, as described in part 3, all it takes is for these people to be members of a regular armed force, which does not have to be recognised as legitimate by the invaders. No other consideration is necessary.

Thats fine. A regular armed force is one that conforms to the rules above it. The guys in 'Gitmo don't qualify - they broke every one of those four (a-d) requirements.

By your own evidence (thanks for providing the quotes, I didn't feel like searching for them), these guys are NOT legal combatants.

 

[Zero]

I'm STILL trying to figure out why these folks shouldn't have POW status, even if they don't officially qualify. What rights does America want to keep them from having, and why is it important to limit those rights?

Mostly, my general question is 'Why does the government fear openess, access to the courts, and a more formal treatment of prisoners?'

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm STILL trying to figure out why these folks shouldn't have POW status, even if they don't officially qualify. What rights does America want to keep them from having, and why is it important to limit those rights?

Mostly, my general question is 'Why does the government fear openess, access to the courts, and a more formal treatment of prisoners?'

I don't think its necessarily about fear, Zero, I think they just plain don't know what to do with them. Frankly though, I do think they should make up their minds and do whatever it is they are going to do, whether it be just letting them go, declaring them POWs and holding them, trying them in military tribunals, trying them in US court, etc. It is taking too long.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm STILL trying to figure out why these folks shouldn't have POW status, even if they don't officially qualify. What rights does America want to keep them from having, and why is it important to limit those rights?

I think it is due to the nature of the conflict. If they are classified as PoWs captured in a war against Afghanistan, they must be repatriated after the fall of Afghanistan. Many of these men are presumed to be engaged in a war against the US that is not limited to Afghanistan. It is assumed they would likely continue fighting the US in some other venue. I think that assumption is probably correct for many of the internees. I also think that it is virtually impossible to tell for which it is correct and for which it is false. However, international law does not provide guidance for conflicts between nations and non-national organizations. Al Qaeda has no nation. You can't technically be at war with it. So, we can not call them prisoners of some war not involving Afghanistan.

Mostly, my general question is 'Why does the government fear openess, access to the courts, and a more formal treatment of prisoners?'

Nominally, they claim that the prisoners could use openness as a means to communicate orders for terrorist acts. I find it hard to believe. There are surely no more than a few in positions of authority. Even so, are there terrorists out there waiting to act? Are they sitting around a table playing cards just waiting for the word to go. No. If there were leaderless terrorists, they've found or promoted new leaders by now.

The prisoners should have some form of legal recourse to appeal their status.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I don't think its necessarily about fear, Zero, I think they just plain don't know what to do with them. Frankly though, I do think they should make up their minds and do whatever it is they are going to do, whether it be just letting them go, declaring them POWs and holding them, trying them in military tribunals, trying them in US court, etc. It is taking too long.

I agree with you completely. DO something with them, or let them go already.

 

[Adam]

Kat

The "following conditions" bit refers ONLY to section 2, as I'm sure you're aware from actually reading it. Those under sections 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, are also combatants, as I'm sure you're aware. So why try to suggest otherwise?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Njorl
Many of these men are presumed to be engaged in a war against the US that is not limited to Afghanistan.

MEN?

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba — They don't wet their beds and their jailers haven't seen them cry. But U.S. soldiers guarding the three youngest terror suspects here say the boys — ages 13 to 15 — experience typical adolescent mood swings amid their strict schedule of study, sports and prayer.
http://www.news-leader.com/today/1129-YoungGuant-228067.html

At least they get good (?) food, they enjoy a vacaction is another part of the world, they learn some english ... and get flashy cloths. Sure it's progress and part of their education.

There is a rumor the guy of 13 was a general of the Taliban.

 

[Adam]

russ_waters

Could you please point me specifically to the portion that discusses airline hijackers, suicide bombers, and other terrorists?

1) The guys on those jets that hit the World Trade Centre in America are dead, not in Cuba. Although you may have a negative opinion of Cuba, it is not the afterlife. Please be clear on that. Thihnk about it carefully. Consider for a good two days or so. Cuba is not afterlife. Get it? Neither those hijackers nor suicide bombers can possibly be there.

2) As for terrorists, well, how do you decide they are terrorists when the law says they are warriors, and Bush says they are "illegal combatants"?

Illegal invasion? In the wrong? Says who?

The law. Since you'd still rather make up stuff rather than check out the actual laws and all, I'll do the work for you once again. Here is another international law the USA signed up for:

UN Charter, Chapter One, Article Two

3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

There are provisions for using force against member states, and these are outlined in Chapter 7, which you can read here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

I guess I missed the UN resolution that said that - could you quote it for me please?

Not a resolution, but the very charter upon which the organisation was established. Yes, you missed it, and yes, I quoted it. Consider yourself now educated. Learn. Absorb the information.

In any case, its not relevant to the issue - a pow has the same status regardless of the legality of the war and as such is held until the end of hostilities. You quoted the relevant passage later in that post, ironically enough.

You're not paying attention. Read more carefully. The USA says they are not POWs, therefore they have no right to abduct and illegal imprison them.

Again. The Red Cross is the organization in question and they HAVE visited the POWs and affirmed they are being treated humanely. Linky: http://www.redcross.org/news/in/intllaw/guantanamo1.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20031010/red_cross_guantanamo_031010/CTVNewsAt11?s_name=
The second link says essentially the Red Cross's only complaint is that the prisoners are upset about not knowing their fate, indicating their physical treatment is humane (otherwise they would have said what was not humane about it).

russ, you need to read more carefully. You really do. From the websites you linked to:

The International Red Cross said Friday many detainees held by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were suffering "a worrying deterioration" in mental health because Washington had ignored appeals to give them legal rights.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20031010/red_cross_guantanamo_031010/CTVNewsAt11?s_name=

"We have observed what we consider to be a worrying deterioration in the psychological health of a large number of the internees" because of the uncertainty of their situation, Westphal told The Associated Press.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20031010/red_cross_guantanamo_031010/CTVNewsAt11?s_name=

And I hope you are aware that the ICRC does not publicly publish its reports.

In short, the ICRC has visited, and is unable to affect any changes. The abducted and illegal imprisoned people are suffering a worsening condition, which has received no alleviation. In other words, they are being prevented from doing what international law allows them to do.

First, I again must have missed this part of the Geneva Convention. Could you quote the part that specifically says that they can't be held in such a manner?

Let me quote the Geneve Convention once again:

The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement[/color] except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

Done.

Second, you must have missed it, but they have built an actual prison there.

I must have indeed missed it. The last I saw, they were still held in close confinement.

Again, the US has decided not to grant them POW status under the same reasoning that YOUR COUNTRY uses.
Again - YOUR GOVERNMENT seems to think there is. Inconvenient for you I know, but its something you can't ignore.

Apart from John Howard being Bush's rentboy, what are you referring to?

Maybe its a reading comprehension problem then - the guy used DIRECT QUOTES of the four criteria and you highlighted the wrong thing.

Russ, your reading skills are terrible. Section 2 only requires those four conditions. There are other requirements which have nothing to do with those four. Read it again.

Thats fine. A regular armed force is one that conforms to the rules above it. The guys in 'Gitmo don't qualify - they broke every one of those four (a-d) requirements.

Russ, you're hopeless. Look. The requirements are: You must be either 1, or 2 (A, B, C, and D), or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6. Here, I'll show you in Boolean if that helps:

POW = 1+3+4+5+6+(2a.2b.2c.2d)

 

[pelastration]

gmto ... and The Mad Cow (Suspected) in Washington? Is there a relation? Maybe.

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106547,00.html

And I would say: NO ... US beef to Iraq!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
I think it is due to the nature of the conflict. If they are classified as PoWs captured in a war against Afghanistan, they must be repatriated after the fall of Afghanistan. Many of these men are presumed to be engaged in a war against the US that is not limited to Afghanistan. It is assumed they would likely continue fighting the US in some other venue.

If I read correctly, the prisoners at gitmo are from something like 40 different countries. That certainly makes it complicated to classify them as combatants in the Afghanistan war.

MEN?

Hadn't heard that one, pelastration, but I can't say I'm surprised. They start learning to be terrorists pretty young in some places. I'm sure you've seen the home videos of Arabic infants dressed up as suicide bombers. Its really pretty sick - american boys grow up wanting to be SpiderMan or a rock star and Arabic boys grow up wanting to blow themselves up while murdering civilians.

Two more related implications of the criteria discussed above for lawful combatants:

Special forces such as the Australian ones referenced above often operate in such a manner as to be capable of being considered unlawful combatants. They are similar to spies in that they fulfil roles such as infiltration and surveilance. For these roles they don't carry weapons openly, wear uniforms, etc.

In the US anyway, special forces are made aware of the implications of their role prior to signing up for special forces. I'm not sure if they officially waive Geneva Convention protection, but they are informed that in some circumstances the GC may not protect them and in some cases don't even carry GC ID cards. Of course that isn't a whole lot different from the fact that most countries we fight don't obey the GC anyway. Your treatment at the hands of an Iraqi or Afghani captor wouldn't vary much based on your GC status.

Somewhat related are some of the war crimes comitted by Saddam. Many of the troops the US opposed operated similar to the manner described above (didn't wear uniforms, didn't display weapons openly, etc), but went one giant step further - they actively hid among civilians. One of the main purposes of those four criteria is to protect civilians by making it easy to distinguish between soldiers and civilians. Saddam knew that guys like Adam wouldn't distinguish different reasons for civilian deaths, so one of his GOALS was to kill as many of his own civilians as possible by essentially using them as human shields (though he went further even than that, actually using civilians as cannon fodder by sending them unarmed to probe our positions). That crime alone could get him executed or jailed for life at the Hague.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
The "following conditions" bit refers ONLY to section 2, as I'm sure you're aware from actually reading it. Those under sections 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, are also combatants, as I'm sure you're aware. So why try to suggest otherwise?

READING COMPREHENSION Adam. You are quite simply misunderstanding what you are reading.

Unless of course you do understand in which case you are trying to argue your point by misrepresenting the evidence.

Adam, I guess I'm finished with you. You really are pretty pathetic. If you don't understand by now, you won't. If you are just misrepresenting the facts (consciously or unconsciously), then you need help of a sort I am not qualified to provide. I keep going back and forth between believing you are deluded about your opinions and really do believe the things you say or that you are simply a hateful person, lying and misrepresenting facts to justify your hate. Either way, this is useless. I will continue to point out your errors, lies, misrepresentations, etc., but I won't be explaining them to you anymore.

 

[Adam]

russ_waters

Despite your desperate ad hominem attacks, you have yet to demonstrate me typing a single lie. Additionally, you have continually gotten it wrong regarding the combatant status issue as outlined in the Geneve Convention under discussion.

For your desperately needed edification, here is the entirety of Article 4 of the convention under discussion:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories[/color], 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 = 1+3+4+5+6+(2a.2b.2c.2d)[/color]

There is no way around this, russ_waters.

 

[Jonathan]

No, I think it is very clearly saying:
POW=A1/(A2a+A2b+A2c+A2d)/A3/A4/A5/A6/B1/B2
Where '/' is 'or' and '+' is 'and'. However, I admit to only reading it for grammar, not for content, so I do not know if it makes it clear in the content of any of those that there are no '+'. But I did read the little intro to A and the intro in 2 (quote) before A2a, A2b, A2c, A2d are listed, and I think they make it quite clear. I think where you are getting confused is that you think that, say, A2b is just as legitimate a category as, say, A4, when in fact A2b is a subcategory of A2, meaning that it has to be true along with A2a, A2c, and A2d in order for A2 to be true. You are thinking: Where in the world did I get that idea? Right here, quoting from your post:

...provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:(A2a, A2b, A2c, A2d)

It doesn't say at least one, or even some, but it implies all.
I like this quote:

There are some people who if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
-Louis Armstrong

 

[Adam]

Jonathan

No, I think it is very clearly saying:
POW=A1/(A2a+A2b+A2c+A2d)/A3/A4/A5/A6/B1/B2
Where '/' is 'or' and '+' is 'and'.

In Boolean logic, which I was using:
. is "and"
+ is "or"

Once again, the convention says "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories", then lists the categories by number.

POW = 1+3+4+5+6+(2a.2b.2c.2d)

 

[Jonathan]

Then what are we arguing about?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
READING COMPREHENSION Adam. You are quite simply misunderstanding what you are reading.

Unless of course you do understand in which case you are trying to argue your point by misrepresenting the evidence.

Adam, I guess I'm finished with you. You really are pretty pathetic. If you don't understand by now, you won't. If you are just misrepresenting the facts (consciously or unconsciously), then you need help of a sort I am not qualified to provide. I keep going back and forth between believing you are deluded about your opinions and really do believe the things you say or that you are simply a hateful person, lying and misrepresenting facts to justify your hate. Either way, this is useless. I will continue to point out your errors, lies, misrepresentations, etc., but I won't be explaining them to you anymore.

Take a time-out Russ...you don't need to continue in this tack ever ever again, comprende?