David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

[gumboot]

That may all be so - I have no doubt that military justice can be very different to civil justice.

But it would seem VERY clear that until such time as Hicks does appear before a military tribunal and has his status determined, he DOES have certain rights accorded to him...which seem to be being denied even now.

Absolutely. The Geneva Convention is very clear on this. If detained, he must be treated as a POW until such time as a tribunal is held. No if's, no buts.

As far as I can see from the facts Hicks was not a hired mercenary, or a spy, therefore would not come under an “unlawful combatant”.

Does, being a member of al queda (basing on this assumption) neccesitate him being a combatant ?

What, I think, complicates this is there's two factors at stake. Firstly, there's the armed conflict between the coalition forces led by the United States of America and the Taliban. The theatre of operations for this armed conflict is Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan.

The international laws of armed conflict must be applied to this armed conflict.

But at the same time, you ALSO have the matter of Al Qaeda - an internationally designated Terrorist organisation. Belonging to or providing material aid to a terrorist organisation is a civil CRIME.

To make matters WORSE, Al Qaeda are partaking in the above mentioned armed conflict as unlawful combatants (being a third party to the conflict and being a terrorist organisation).

So potentially, you could have someone caught who is an enemy combatant, fighting for the Taliban, and thus a POW. However AT THE SAME TIME they could also be a member of Al Qaeda, making them an international criminal who must be tried in court with due process. If they are also fighting for Al Qaeda in the conflict, that makes them also an unlawful combatant on top of all that!

The conclusion? The International Laws of Armed Conflict are hopelessly outdated and unsuited for the current trend in international armed conflict.

Apply that logic to say WW2, German civilians are also enemy combatants because they believe the actions of their country are just.

Not at all. To be an enemy combatant you have to be directly involved in hosilities.

Probably starting to go off track but what status are US troops captured by:

a.) al queda
b.) Iraqi insurgents

Both cases, POWs (though I would say their status is "f***ed"). The status of a detainee is defined by their actions and activities. It's irrelevant who catches them.

Not even close. Your implication is that 'the libruls' want them all set free, while others here want them to all get a bullet to the head.

All we have been advocating is following due process, and not making up new rules. The outcome of the process should be dependent entirely on the facts.

I don't like to paint everyone with the same brush, and I didn't really want to use the term "liberal" because it's not accurate. But there are MANY people who don't want to see due process at all - they want to see the people released. (Admittedly most of these are non-Americans).

I also appreciate and understand that many people hold the expectations you mentioned above - due process for the detainees and an outcome dependant on facts.

I just think it's important to recognise that detainees of armed conflict do not necessarily have a right to due process. To apply a blanket due process of trial and conviction or release to all of the detainees would have to involve making up new rules.

-Gumboot

 

[Crossbow]

So you have nothing to discuss unless you can resort to lies?

I did not lie and yet you define lies as those things which make you angry.

I have no desire to discuss much of anything with someone who has the same emotional maturity that I did when I was two years old.

 

[WildCat]

I did not lie and yet you define lies as those things which make you angry.

Your lies:

I suggest that you stop talking about why FDR was not tried for war crimes during World War II.

Show where I ever talked about how FDR should be tried for war crimes.

Well, it sure sounded like you were claiming that all detainees should be held until the end of hostilities when you say things like:

Unless you think "can" means the same thing as "should" this is a lie. Does "can" mean the same thing as "should" Crossbow?

Instead, Bush has used his own authority to hold and release prisoners as he sees fit to do so, therefore if your claim is accurate, then Bush would be guilty of treason by letting prisoners go before the war had been concluded, and Bush would be guilty of war crimes by holding the detainees as 'Enemy Combatants' instead of 'Prisoners of War'.

Show where I ever claimed that Bush was obligated to hold all prisoners until the end of the war, and that failure to do this would be a war crime.

And then we just have an example of where you're simply wrong:

Excuse me again for pointing out the obvious, but the USA has not declared war on al Qaeda. The USA can only declare war on other nations, and al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation, therefore al Qaeda cannot be treated as a nation.

The AUMF proves you wrong here.