Innocents in Gitmo

[PLC1]

SCOTUS wants all these civilian trials overseen by ONE judge to ensure consistency among the trials and verdicts... The judge appointed to the post will make all the difference. If that judge is chosen by the same majority that brought us this ruling, well... I can only imagine the resulting public circus.

Heaven forbid we should actually have a judge that believes in habeus corpus, or in abiding by the Geneva Convention.

If they are "enemy combatants", as Bush Inc. claims, then they deserve to be treated according to the geneva conventions. If they are accused criminals, then they deserve habeus corpus. To say that they are simply "terrorists" because someone said so, and there fore have no rights at all, is simply un American.

 

[BigRob]

Heaven forbid we should actually have a judge that believes in habeus corpus, or in abiding by the Geneva Convention.

If they are "enemy combatants", as Bush Inc. claims, then they deserve to be treated according to the geneva conventions. If they are accused criminals, then they deserve habeus corpus. To say that they are simply "terrorists" because someone said so, and there fore have no rights at all, is simply un American.

Since you must have missed my post on the legal precedence affirming the Bush position, I will repost.


The decision to deny Al Quada and Taliban detainees POW protections was the proper interpretation of the treaty. The US position on this regard has been in place since the 1980's.

The battle started under the Reagan administration when the issue of the Protocol I amendments to the Geneva Convention came up.

The POW protections in the Geneva Conventions were designed to give soldiers an incentive to fight in ways that minimized suffering among combatants and civilians alike. If a soldier wears a uniform and complies with the basic laws of war, he would be treated well if caught. But if (as terrorists do) he wears ordinary clothes and hides among civilians, he endangers the innocent and acts treacherously toward rival soldiers, and thus receives no rights under the Geneva Convention.

In the 1970's, so-called national liberation movements, such as the PLO, tried to alter the understanding of the laws in Protocol I by extending POW and other "combatant" protections to all fighters (such as members of the PLO) who hid among civilians.

This effort dovetailed with the agenda of the nascent human rights movement and groups such as the Red Cross. They saw this as an opportunity to to import more demanding human rights standards into the laws of war by rejecting Geneva's traditional reciprocity requirements by ensuring that there were "no gaps" in the basic protections provided to even the most vicious and law defying combatants. The United States refused to ratify Protocol I and therefore it never became part of United States law.

When the Bush administration acted in 2002 to deny these "combatants" legal protections under the Geneva Conventions he was acting in step with this long held US position that these type fighters should be denied these legal protections. As Will Taft said, "The lawyers all agree that Al Quada and Taliban fighters are presumptively not POW's."

The problem came about because in 2001 almost all of the United States European allies had ratified Protocol I and viewed the US rejection of it as a rejection of International Law (incorrectly), and through the same lens of the "de-signing" of the ICC treaty, as well as the failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (which was a good move by the US), and the withdrawal from the ABM treaty with Russia as a "cowboy" like attitude that the US had taken which would go against their international law norms.

Legally, their views were incorrect, as the United States had never adhered to this Protocol of the Geneva Conventions and therefore was not bound in any manner by it. Their disagreements came mostly in the form of customary law arguments which are ruled void if a US law is in place.

This also followed the legal precedent set by the Clinton White House when he held over 40,000 Cuban "boat people" on the island so that they would not be able to request the political asylum as they would be able to if they were on US soil. Clinton also created the rendition programs and first got the legal order that the US was in an "armed conflict" with Al Quada in 1998 to avoid the ban on murders and assassinations should they find Bin Laden.

Bush's decision to hold prisoners in this facility had clear legal precedent and was no by means against the law or even controversial within all branches of the administration. Only now through the eyes of European international law (that the US never ratified or ascribed to) we are being forced to grant these people legal rights, which is most certainly ridiculous.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I see. Are you against the idea of putting them on trial to see which are really terrorists and which are goat herders who were turned in for the reward money?

The problem is that we're not dealing with "Prisoners of War" as defined by GCIII, we're dealing with terrorists, and given that the military, with over 2 years of time to find out for certain has missed some, what possible reason is there to believe that some slick lawyers and a Judge with absolutely no experience in the military is going to be able to ascertain the difference. If they are to be "tried", then they should be tried by military courts (which, if you've ever served in the military, you know the rules under the MCM are MUCH tougher for the Prosecution than in sillyvillian courts). No, the best thing to do with them is the same thing we did with German, Italian, (Vichy) French and Japanese prisoners during WWII, hold on to them until hostilities are over, and then return them to their country of origin.

Also, what's the big deal about "trials"? How many POW's did we "try" during WWII? This isn't a "criminal" case, it's a military case, and should be treated accordingly.

 

[PLC1]

The problem is that we're not dealing with "Prisoners of War" as defined by GCIII, we're dealing with terrorists, and given that the military, with over 2 years of time to find out for certain has missed some, what possible reason is there to believe that some slick lawyers and a Judge with absolutely no experience in the military is going to be able to ascertain the difference. If they are to be "tried", then they should be tried by military courts (which, if you've ever served in the military, you know the rules under the MCM are MUCH tougher for the Prosecution than in sillyvillian courts). No, the best thing to do with them is the same thing we did with German, Italian, (Vichy) French and Japanese prisoners during WWII, hold on to them until hostilities are over, and then return them to their country of origin.

Also, what's the big deal about "trials"? How many POW's did we "try" during WWII? This isn't a "criminal" case, it's a military case, and should be treated accordingly.

The POWs of WWII were just that, prisoners of war. The Gitmo detainees are not, in the classic sense, as they don't belong to any organized army run by a government. Some of them are, no doubt, terrorists, but most of them are not.

They seem to be in that limbo in which they are neither citizens protected by the Constitution, nor POWs protected by the Geneva Convention. As such, they have been subject to mistreatment and indefinite detention without charges. Many of them are innocent, and some of them were actually on our side before being sold to the military.

Keeping people locked up without charges or communication, mistreating prisoners, using "enhanced interrogation techniques" i. e. torture, is not what my country is all about. This government is out of control.

 

[GenSeneca]

Heaven forbid we should actually have a judge that believes in habeus corpus, or in abiding by the Geneva Convention.

If they are "enemy combatants", as Bush Inc. claims, then they deserve to be treated according to the geneva conventions. If they are accused criminals, then they deserve habeus corpus. To say that they are simply "terrorists" because someone said so, and there fore have no rights at all, is simply un American.

I want you to think about the logistical implications of such a decision.... In our courts, we have the right to face our accusers as well as the need for witness testimony.

Our soldiers are fighting a war. They are the accusers and the witnesses for these cases. The information necessary to properly bring cases against suspects is likely classified and will become part of public record.

So if the American thing to do is haul our soldiers back and forth from the frontlines to the courtrooms, while divulging American intelligence information in the process, and spending millions more of taxpayer dollars in the process - I don't want any part of it.

When we start summarily executing "suspects" as "spies" under the GC protocols, for fighting out of uniform, to avoid this courtroom debacle, I don't want to hear any complaining from people who though this SCOTUS decision was a good idea.

 

[PLC1]

I want you to think about the logistical implications of such a decision.... In our courts, we have the right to face our accusers as well as the need for witness testimony.

Our soldiers are fighting a war. They are the accusers and the witnesses for these cases. The information necessary to properly bring cases against suspects is likely classified and will become part of public record.

So if the American thing to do is haul our soldiers back and forth from the frontlines to the courtrooms, while divulging American intelligence information in the process, and spending millions more of taxpayer dollars in the process - I don't want any part of it.

When we start summarily executing "suspects" as "spies" under the GC protocols, for fighting out of uniform, to avoid this courtroom debacle, I don't want to hear any complaining from people who though this SCOTUS decision was a good idea.

That would be the next logical step, wouldn't it? Hey, that guy looks Mid Eastern, and that other dude, the one from the tribe that has been feuding with his tribe for the past few centuries, says he's a terrorist. Shoot him. No, no, let's hang him from the ceiling for a few days first to see if he gives us any useful information.

 

[BigRob]

That would be the next logical step, wouldn't it? Hey, that guy looks Mid Eastern, and that other dude, the one from the tribe that has been feuding with his tribe for the past few centuries, says he's a terrorist. Shoot him. No, no, let's hang him from the ceiling for a few days first to see if he gives us any useful information.

Did you know that the foiled London airline plot was only prevented because the information was tortured out a man in Pakistan?

I know you will now ask for proof, but I will not discuss this matter further.

 

[PLC1]

Did you know that the foiled London airline plot was only prevented because the information was tortured out a man in Pakistan?

I know you will now ask for proof, but I will not discuss this matter further.

I've heard that. That case is a great talking point, and is being used as a justification for torture. What is the justification for keeping people in prison without charges?

 

[Libsmasher]

And yet, many innocents have been incarcerated for years, while real terrorists have been released.

This is ass-backwards - IFs released that even the army thought were innocent resumed their terrorist careers.

 

[BigRob]

I've heard that. That case is a great talking point, and is being used as a justification for torture. What is the justification for keeping people in prison without charges?

The fact that 30 years of legal precedence in the United States said you could. And the fact that OLC confirmed this idea, as did State Department and Department of Defense lawyers. The suspension of habeus corpus dates back to Lincoln during the Civil War.

The justification was in the legal precedence, which apparently is faltering because of international law that the US never signed on to but the Europeans have adopted as customary international law.

 

[Libsmasher]

Just a quick little interjection here to remind folks that habeas corpus has >>>NEVER<<< (before the USSC blunder the other day) been applicable to captured combatants in wartime. OK - carry on!

 

[PLC1]

Just a quick little interjection here to remind folks that habeas corpus has >>>NEVER<<< (before the USSC blunder the other day) been applicable to captured combatants in wartime. OK - carry on!

Captured combatants? How do we know they are combatants? If they are, in fact, POW, then they are subject to the Geneva Conventions. If not, then why are we holding them?

Here is another "enemy combatant"

This is Nazar Chaman Gul. His story is found here:

KABUL, Afghanistan — At the bottom of Nazar Chaman Gul's case, beneath hundreds of pages of documents filed by his lawyers and the American government, are a toothache and some bad luck.

His story is repeated many times over here.

KABUL, Afghanistan — American soldiers herded the detainees into holding pens of razor-sharp concertina wire, the kind that's used to corral livestock.

The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. U.S. troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling.

Guards said they routinely beat their prisoners to retaliate for al Qaida's 9-11 attacks, unaware that the vast majority of the detainees had little or no connection to al Qaida.

Not just the prisoners, not just Al Qaeda repeating what they've been trained to say, but the guards.

OK, carry on.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You're so busy whining about a few innocents picked up in a war zone, where is your indignation at the THOUSANDS of people who have been released from prisons here in the US over the past few years when it was finally proven that they too were completely innocent, many of whom had spent DECADES, and not just a couple of years, in prison?

Oh, and BTW, and this is just for you, so don't tell anyone else, the International Committee of the Red Cross has determined that under International Humanitarian Law;(emphasis mine)

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

They go on to say: (again, emphasis mine)

The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a "competent tribunal" in case of doubt are mandatory.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status."

Now, you were saying...what?

 

[PLC1]

You're so busy whining about a few innocents picked up in a war zone, where is your indignation at the THOUSANDS of people who have been released from prisons here in the US over the past few years when it was finally proven that they too were completely innocent, many of whom had spent DECADES, and not just a couple of years, in prison?

Thousands? I think that's an exaggeration, but nevertheless, I've ranted about that one also. Look up the "Innocence Project", and you'll see that they have freed more than 200 men accused of rape, for example. I'm pretty indignant about that unrelated issue also. What is your point?

Oh, and BTW, and this is just for you, so don't tell anyone else, the International Committee of the Red Cross has determined that under International Humanitarian Law;(emphasis mine)



They go on to say: (again, emphasis mine)

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

That's what we're doing isn't it, prosecuting them under our domestic law? Why we didn't do so years ago is a mystery, but we are at last doing what should have been done.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status.

OK, so don't say that they are POW. They are not. What rights do they have, then?

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law.

I'm guessing that doesn't include regular beatings, hanging from the ceiling, or being incarcerated indefinitely without charges. That's just a wild guess, you understand.

Now, you were saying...what?

That the US, or anyone else, has no business mistreating prisoners, even if they are accused of "terrorism." Your point?

 

[BigRob]

As pointed out in another thread you two are arguing about Protocol I to the conventions which the United States refused to ratify and is not a party to, and therefore has no legal bearing in this regard.