US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

[ceo_esq]

I propose that they are treated according to International and US law, either as criminals or POWs and that the children are treated appropriately for their age, again according to International and US law.

There is a real question here as to whether, under international law, a 15- or 16-year-old is necessarily a child. This is already being discussed somewhat in the other thread on this issue.

The Geneva Conventions certainly don't supply any definition of "child". The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates 17 and under, unless the person has reached a lower age of majority under applicable law (arguably the law of the person's home jurisdiction). I don't know what the customary age of majority in Afghanistan is, but I'd be rather surprised if it were above 16 for males, and not very surprised if it were a little lower.

These may not be children at all, legally speaking.

 

[iain]

Perhaps I should amend my statement to

I propose that they are treated according to International and US law, either as criminals or POWs and are treated appropriately for their age, again according to International and US law.

 

[RandFan]

This Bush/Ashcroft policy will undoubtedly go down in the history books right alongside Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts as an example of the impact of political hysteria on civil liberties.

Considering that the prisoners are treated better than the guards and that the prisoners themselves have said that they have been treated in a human way and when you contrast that with the treatment of prisoners in nearly all other Muslim countries (*dismemberment, torture, disfigurement, murder, etc.) then I seriously doubt that.

* See Iran/Iraq war, USSR/Afghanistan war, etc.

 

[Clancie]

originally posted by RandFan
Considering that the prisoners are treated better than the guards and that the prisoners themselves have said that they have been treated in a human way

Not from what I've read. Source?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Not from what I've read.

Source?

 

[RandFan]

This policy will haunt Americans for years and years to come (as will the Ashcroft policy of detentions of immigrants without charges, without counsel, without presumption of innocence).

Again, considering the treatment of siezed combatants throughout the world it is hard to imagine how this would "haunt" Americans. That is not say that the actions are correct. I am very interested in this discussion and I would like to know more on the legal and moral considerations. It certainly raises a red flag in my mind.

 

[CWL]

Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

Illegal combatants are not covered by the geneva POW status. I like how you try to lump two things in.

What the heck are "illegal combatants" anyway and why doesn't the rule of law apply to them?

Can any state just invent new terms within international law and keep people imprisoned without explaining to them what crimes they are accused of and denying them access to effective remedies by categorizing them according to such new terms?

Just wondering.

 

[ceo_esq]

Considering that the prisoners are treated better than the guards and that the prisoners themselves have said that they have been treated in a human way and when you contrast that with the treatment of prisoners in nearly all other Muslim countries (*dismemberment, torture, disfigurement, murder, etc.) then I seriously doubt that.

I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on."

Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

 

[RandFan]

Not from what I've read. Source?

I saw a news report where prisoners were transfered to Afghanastan and being held in a jail. They were questioned by reporters and they told how their lives were better at guantanamo than when the were fighters for the Taliban. They got excelent health care and were fed regurly. Some of the reporters seemed agitated that the prisoners were not complaining about abuse. In fact the prisoners were complaining about their treatment in Afghanastand and were demanding to be released or sent back to Guantanamo.

I also remember a news report about a guard who was filling suit because the prisoners recieved better treatment. I will try and find the references.

Torturing the truth about Guantanamo

Don't take my word for it. A spokesman for Human Rights Watch, one of the organizations protesting the conditions in Guantanamo, expresses no objection to the devices used to control the inmates during transport. Its concern is the type of cells in which the inmates will be held. Why? Because, with their chain-link sides, "they offer scant shelter from wind and rain."

But putting someone in open-air housing on a tropical Caribbean island during January somehow fails to bring to mind the Spanish Inquisition. (Sunday's forecast for Havana: partly cloudy, with a high of 86 degrees and a low of 66.) Americans have been known to pay handsome sums to undergo such agony. Even Human Rights Watch notes that these are merely temporary quarters, and that the Defense Department is already building permanent facilities with those all-important walls as well as roofs.

Likewise, the alleged "sensory deprivation" and "unnecessary restraint" that outraged Amnesty International were of no particular concern to the International Committee of the Red Cross. It doesn't claim these violated the Geneva Convention. The violation, in its view, was -- I'm not making this up -- the photo itself, which supposedly flouted the rule against making a public spectacle of captives.

There you have it: The United States opens a window on its alleged inhumanity, and it gets blamed for both the alleged inhumanity and for its openness.

But the human-rights watchdogs don't even agree on that. Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch says, "I wouldn't say it's a violation. You can't parade prisoners before jeering crowds, or release humiliating photos, or make them objects of scorn." Demeaning the prisoners was obviously not the purpose in this instance.

It's not clear by any means that the U.S. has any obligation to follow every jot and tittle of the Geneva Convention, which was not written to uphold the rights of people who fly civilian airliners into office buildings. To qualify for the protections of that treaty, combatants have to follow basic rules of war, like wearing uniforms, carrying your arms openly, and respecting the rules of war. Al Qaeda's members obviously don't qualify, and even Taliban soldiers may not.

If a state or nation refuses to sign the Geneva Convention and refuses to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention then what is the advantage of giving those who violate the Geneva Convention the protections of the Convention?

In fact, they are unlawful combatants. Whether they are al Qaeda or Taliban, they belong to organizations that don't respect the laws of war, and flunk the other tests for a legitimate army (wearing uniforms, having a discernible chain of command, etc.).

 

[RandFan]

Right Country, Wrong Camp

They eat Islamically correct meals and study free copies of the Koran. Muslim prayers flow from camp loud speakers. They receive bug spray to prevent mosquito bites. Too bad one Army guard had no terrorist repellent to keep a prisoner from biting him January 19. The Pentagon says one detainee consistently threatens to kill American soldiers while another has spat on two camp personnel.

The U.S. supposedly abuses these suspects by housing them in open-air shelters. With January 24 temperatures spanning 68 to 82 degrees, this is no hardship. The Red Cross complains that photographing shackled inmates humiliates them. But if the Pentagon shielded them from cameras, it would be slammed for concealing prisoners from the eyes of the world.

A Lesson in Americanism

We respect and provide for the most basic needs of these men. Not only that, we are also respecting their culture and religion. Our Taliban prisoners receive two towels, one for bathing and one for use in prayers. They receive three culturally appropriate meals each day. They have daily opportunities to shower, exercise and receive medical attention. And they are not generally photographed because, of all things, it is considered embarrassing to some of them.

Think about it: These are followers-to-the-death of Osama bin Laden, the man who said, "Our terrorism is a good accepted terrorism because it's against America." We're taking steps to prevent his disciples not only from being hungry or cold, but also from being… embarrassed.

We don't have to do any of this, of course. When a reporter asked Secretary Rumsfeld how he would expect American soldiers to be treated if captured by the Taliban, he said, "I'd expect they'd have just been shot summarily, as happened with any number of people." There has not been much cry from the human-rights community about that because no one expects anything better from al Qaeda.

 

[Clancie]

Originally posted by RandFan
If a state or nation refuses to sign the Geneva Convention and refuses to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention then what is the advantage of giving those who violate the Geneva Convention the protections of the Convention?

"?"
The U.S. and Afghanistan both signed the Geneva Conventions.

And isn't that the rationale behind the Bush policy that applies some protections to Taliban, but not to Al-Quaida?

(And, of course, there are over 30 other nationalities being held at Guantanamo, as well).

 

[RandFan]

The U.S. and Afghanistan both signed the Geneva Conventions.

Well of course the US signed the Geneva Convention. Did the Taliban government sign the Geneva Convention?

Did the Taliban or Al-Qaeda adhere to the Geneva Convention?

(And, of course, there are over 30 other nationalities being held at Guantanamo, as well).

Did those individuals violate the Geneva Convention?

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

Can any state just invent new terms within international law and keep people imprisoned without explaining to them what crimes they are accused of and denying them access to effective remedies by categorizing them according to such new terms?

Just wondering.

If a state has the will to do so, and the means to enforce a decision, yes. Now what?

Perhaps you and other like-minded individuals should form a nation-state, raise an army, and declare war on the US. (Try terrorism first, although we may be getting a handle on how to deal with that too.)

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on."

Thanks ceo_esq.

I think such a statement needs to be addressed by those who claim that the detainees are being misstreated.

In any event I am still a bit concerned about the detainees not being charged or having leagal assistance. I would like some more information on this if anyone has it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

What the heck are "illegal combatants" anyway and why doesn't the rule of law apply to them?

Apparently, "illegal combatants" are people (US citizens or not) that are fighting against the US. In this case, those "combatants" have been taken prisoner in a conflict that the US is calling a "war."

I hope this clears things up (although it doesn't for me).

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

CWL
What the heck are "illegal combatants" anyway and why doesn't the rule of law apply to them?

pgwenthold
Apparently, "illegal combatants" are people (US citizens or not) that are fighting against the US. In this case, those "combatants" have been taken prisoner in a conflict that the US is calling a "war."

Have you ever played a game in which your opponent refused to follow the rules but demanded that you follow them?

To have any meaning the convention must be followed by all who agree to the rules. As I understand, those that don't follow the rules aren't guaranteed all of its protections. This does not mean that we can do anything we want to these detainees.

To qualify for the protections of that treaty, combatants have to follow basic rules of war, like wearing uniforms, carrying your arms openly, and respecting the rules of war. Al Qaeda's members obviously don't qualify, and even Taliban soldiers may not.

(link above)

In truth we have treated the detainees in a humane manner (see my last post above)

 

[Advocate]

Re: Re: Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

Apparently, "illegal combatants" are people (US citizens or not) that are fighting against the US. In this case, those "combatants" have been taken prisoner in a conflict that the US is calling a "war."

I hope this clears things up (although it doesn't for me).

Actually the problem is that, as far as I know, these people do not fit the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in the Geneva Conventions. "Illegal combatants" is a name created to refer to those persons captured who were involved in the combat but who do not fit the legal definition of POW. I think it was simpler than calling them "captured combatants who do not fall under the legal definition of prisoner of war."

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

Actually the problem is that, as far as I know, these people do not fit the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in the Geneva Conventions. "Illegal combatants" is a name created to refer to those persons captured who were involved in the combat but who do not fit the legal definition of POW. I think it was simpler than calling them "captured combatants who do not fall under the legal definition of prisoner of war."

If they are acting "illegally," then they should be treated as criminals? (when they say "illegal" combatants, by whose laws are they illegal? US or international?")

If they are in violation of US laws, then they should be treated as US criminals. If they are violating international law, then international law applies. How many have been given access to legal representation (shoot, they didn't even give legal representation to a US citizen they captured, even after he requested it).

Did they actually "combat" the US before the US attacked Afghanistan? If not, then how can the fact they fought back be considered "illegal." If they fought the US before we attacked, then they are either terrorist or terrorist conspiratorists.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

Actually the problem is that, as far as I know, these people do not fit the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in the Geneva Conventions. "Illegal combatants" is a name created to refer to those persons captured who were involved in the combat but who do not fit the legal definition of POW. I think it was simpler than calling them "captured combatants who do not fall under the legal definition of prisoner of war."

Actually, a simpler question might be: How can they be called "combatants" if we aren't at war? Calling them "combatants" indicates combate is occuring, regardless of whether it was declared against a country or not. The Geneva convention doesn't consider military conflict to be war?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN

If they are acting "illegally," then they should be treated as criminals? (when they say "illegal" combatants, by whose laws are they illegal? US or international?")

If they are in violation of US laws, then they should be treated as US criminals. If they are violating international law, then international law applies. How many have been given access to legal representation (shoot, they didn't even give legal representation to a US citizen they captured, even after he requested it).

Did they actually "combat" the US before the US attacked Afghanistan? If not, then how can the fact they fought back be considered "illegal." If they fought the US before we attacked, then they are either terrorist or terrorist conspiratorists.

You are creating IMO a false dichotomy. There is reason to treat these detainees similar to POWs. On the other hand their is reason to treat them as criminals. The problem is that neither distinction adequately deals with the unique problems of combatants acting in an illegal manner.

Can you show any precedent to support the idea that they must be treated specifically as POWs or criminals? If they had commited specific war crimes then I can see how they would be war criminals. But not fighting under the rules of the Geneva Convention in my mind has not been dealt with in the past.

What we need is a legal expert versed in this area. Any help would be apreciated.