Gitmo detainees entitled to Geneva protections

[billvon 3,120]

>They have a dirty towel wrapped around their head, and they're
>shooting at you with AK47s and RPGs?

Or they're a taxi driver with a suspicious-looking generator part in the trunk. What more do you need to imprison and execute someone?

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

How do you establish that they are terrorists without some kind of fair and impartial hearing?

They have a dirty towel wrapped around their head, and they're shooting at you with AK47s and RPGs? That sounds like a reasonable starting point.

Prove it in a court of law

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>They have a dirty towel wrapped around their head, and they're
>shooting at you with AK47s and RPGs?

Or they're a taxi driver with a suspicious-looking generator part in the trunk. What more do you need to imprison and execute someone?

and they're shooting at you with AK47s and RPGs?
That's a pretty key observation, IMO.

BTW - that response was a little bit tongue in cheek, but not too much.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>and they're shooting at you with AK47s and RPGs?

Who? The taxi driver? Nope, he was just driving.

That's why the announcement today is good news. We get the people in our military prisons into a courtroom. The ones firing on US troops go to jail (or get executed) and the innocent taxi driver gets released. Everybody wins.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>and they're shooting at you with AK47s and RPGs?

Who? The taxi driver? Nope, he was just driving.

That's why the announcement today is good news. We get the people in our military prisons into a courtroom. The ones firing on US troops go to jail (or get executed) and the innocent taxi driver gets released. Everybody wins.

Right. That taxi driver only picks up his Makarov when he has a target. Puts it down and it "belongs to someone else" when he doesn't. He's back to just being a taxi driver. Not saying that's always the case Bill. Just very frustrating when you've had to deal with it personally. It's can all be a "perfect world" with justice for all... when you're not there.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Who? The taxi driver? Nope, he was just driving.

How many taxi drivers has our military arrested? And, where did you get the info?

We are all engines of karma

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party).
edited for clarity.

How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad.

This was a serious question. How about it?

[billvon 3,120]

>Just very frustrating when you've had to deal with it personally.

Yep. But it's part of the price we agreed to pay when we invaded another country. The time to decide you don't want to pay the price is before you invade.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party).

So, with your understanding of the Geneva Convention, what is the US doing wrong here?

"Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity." -Geneva 4, Art. 27

"No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties." -Geneva 4, Art. 31

"Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents." -Geneva 4, Art. 32


"persons held in the CIA interrogation center at Bagram air base in Afghanistan are being subject to “stress and duress” techniques, including “standing or kneeling for hours” and being “held in awkward, painful positions." -HRW.org

"Red Cross investigators had found a system devised to break the will of prisoners through "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions." The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture," -AP quoting Red Cross report on Guantanamo conditions

[pajarito 0]

What if the insurgent was not a national of a country party to the convention?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party).
edited for clarity.

How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad.

Sudan has been a party to the conventions since 1980.

[billvon 3,120]

>How many taxi drivers has our military arrested? And, where did you get the info?

Just using one example. Google Dilawar.

A few more if you feel like looking them up:

Bader Zaman
Abu Bakkir Qassim
Jamal al-Harith

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party).
edited for clarity.

How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad.

Sudan has been a party to the conventions since 1980.

Surprising. Thanks. Do you know of any who weren't?

Added: But you know, if I'm fighting under the banner of Al-Qaida, that's not a country. Why would it matter where I'm actually from. How can they possibly be covered if that's the criteria? Again, I haven't read it and don't know. Just curious.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

What if the insurgent was not a national of a country party to the convention?

This is rare, as the list of parties to the convention is very long. While the captured person would not have geneva protections, they would still have the protections of the convention against torture and other treaties and customary international law.

Edit: there are 192 parties to Geneva, including Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei, Burundi, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lybia, Pakistan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Lione, Singapore, and Sudan.

[billvon 3,120]

>But you know, if I'm fighting under the banner of Al-Qaida, that's not a country.

Right, but the convention is applicable to nationals of signatory countries, which they are. I mean, the foreign fighters may be members of a certain mosque as well, but it wouldn't make much sense to say "the treaty applies only to Iraqis, not mosque members!"

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Added: But you know, if I'm fighting under the banner of Al-Qaida, that's not a country. Why would it matter where I'm actually from. How can they possibly be covered if that's the criteria? Again, I haven't read it and don't know. Just curious.

The criteria of Geneva is that you have to be a national of a country party to the convention. Example: If I'm a US citizen, and I go to Ireland and help out the IRA, that doesn't make me now unprotected, even though the IRA is not a party, because I'm still a US citizen.

What matters is where you are from, not what you're doing or who you're doing it for.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party).

So, with your understanding of the Geneva Convention, what is the US doing wrong here?

Absolutely nothing! ALL US detainees presently held in Geneva are perfectly safe, not abused, and have all their human rights.
As for the ones in Cuba... We can blame the Damn' Commies for that, can't we?

IF the Guantenamo detainees actually gain their rights under The Geneva Convention this will be something of a first for US prisoners of war... Since the US has NEVER actually held any Prisoners of War. They've ALWAYS been called something else: Damn' Nazis, Damn' Ayrabs Damn' Commies, Damn' Terrorists, Damn' Japs, Disarmed Enemy Combatants. That's it. Disarmed Enemy Combatants. Not Prisoners of war... No Sirree! We don't got no Prisoners of War, them there "Disarmed Enemy Combatants' is not covered by The Geneva Convention.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party).
edited for clarity.

How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad.

Sudan has been a party to the conventions since 1980.

Surprising. Thanks. Do you know of any who weren't?

Added: But you know, if I'm fighting under the banner of Al-Qaida, that's not a country. Why would it matter where I'm actually from. How can they possibly be covered if that's the criteria? Again, I haven't read it and don't know. Just curious.

In Afghanistan the "insurgents" were Taliban, which was the de-facto legitimate government at the time of our invasion, and signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

And as a matter of fact, fewer than 10% of the Gitmo detainees were actually captured in any kind of battle or fighting scenario.

No matter how the US wiggles and squirms, it doesn't come over as the white-hat in this case.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

A lot of you are losing track of the point, which is that a captive is either a POW subject to the Geneva Convention, or a criminal defendant subject to due process of law. There is no 3rd category.

So, for example, if a person is captured by US military forces in Country X, the US must either:
(a) deem him a POW & treat him according to the Geneva Convention; or
(b) afford him due process of law under US law as a criminal defendant; or
(c) turn him over to the International Court at The Hague for trial under international law (like was done with Milosovec); or
(d) transfer him over to the custody of the authorities of Country X for criminal prosecution under the laws of Country X.

> What about a detainee who is a national of a country that is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention?

On the one hand, if they're uniformed military or recognized militia, and they're POWs, they might technically not be protected by the Geneva Convention. But if they're captured by a nation which is a signatory, it could be argued that that nation, by virtue of its having signed the Convention, has taken upon itself the obligation to treat all persons in wartime in accordance with the Convention's guidelines. In any event, there are very few countries which have not signed the Convention.

>Why are terrorists entitled to any kind of protection?

Well, if they're military, then they're POW's subject to the Geneva Convention. If they're military and they commit war crimes, they're subject to being tried and punished as war criminals, subject to due process of law. If they're non-military and they commit acts of terrorism, then they're subject to prosecution as criminal defendants under due process of law, the same way that Timothy McVeigh and Zaccharias Moussaoui were prosecuted under due process of law.

> Why? They were captured while shooting at us. We know they're guilty.

Because that's what due process of law is all about. On November 25, 1963, Jack Ruby shot Lee Oswald on live TV in front of literally millions of eyewitnesses. Not much doubt that he did the deed, right? He was still given the jury trial to which he was entitled under the law.

[billvon 3,120]

>Not Prisoners of war... No Sirree! We don't got no Prisoners of War . . .

My favorite Orwellian Guantanamo term is the term NLEC (no longer enemy combatants.) Which is an odd term when you think about it. They were enemy combatants, but then stopped being enemy combatants? "Not really enemy combatants" would perhaps be a better term. Or "Never really were enemy combatants to begin with." (No, too long.)

In any case, it must be a happy day when prisoners learn of their new status -

"Hey Zakirjan, we figured out you're innocent! We're promoting you to an NLEC. Now get back in your cell, or it's more waterboarding for you."

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

But it's part of the price we agreed to pay when we invaded another country.

Bill, we didn't agree to invade another country.

Our country was attacked. 3000 moms and dads lost their lives in OUR country for going to work one day. Why? Because some Islamic Radical managed to galvanize other Islamic Radicals to kill our citizens.

The way you phrased that sentence somehow left out the very important fact of Sept. 11. Never forget that date.

Those Islamic Radicals aren't going to stop killing our citizens. And, they've already shown they can do it effectively.

What do we do about it?

Quote

The time to decide you don't want to pay the price is before you invade.

Believe or not, I am violence averse. It's the last thing to do. But, here we are. Our country is doing what needs to be done. Not in the best way, IMO, but, here we are.

We, as a country, really need to wake up and realize we're not dealing with a culture that's like ours. We need to change their ways, or they're going to change our ways.

We are all engines of karma

[pajarito 0]

Quote

In Afghanistan the "insurgents" were Taliban, which was the de-facto legitimate government at the time of our invasion, and signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

I served in Afghanistan 02-03. We captured, interrogated, and sent off plenty who weren't Taliban and who were from many other countries. They traveled to Afghanistan for Jihad. I also dealt with the Taliban and understand exactly who they are.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

we didn't agree to invade another country.

Our country was attacked. 3000 moms and dads lost their lives in OUR country for going to work one day. Why? Because some Islamic Radical managed to galvanize other Islamic Radicals to kill our citizens.

I think it's reasonable to differentiate between our invasion of Afghanistan and our invasion of Iraq.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

"Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity." -Geneva 4, Art. 27

"No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties." -Geneva 4, Art. 31

"Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents." -Geneva 4, Art. 32

Thanks for the reply. How is a protected person defined?

We are all engines of karma

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Our country was attacked. 3000 moms and dads lost their lives in OUR country for going to work one day. Why? Because some Islamic Radical managed to galvanize other Islamic Radicals to kill our citizens.

We need to go get those evil perpetrators of this evil deed......lets invade.....hmm where did most of the terrorists come from again??????