KSM being tried in secret trial

Called combatant status review tribunals, the hearings determine whether detainees should be classified as enemy combatants, who can be held indefinitely and are eligible for military trials.[...]

Though similar hearings have been open to the media, last week's hearings were closed to reporters and the detainees' lawyers because of fears that detainees might divulge classified information, the officials said.
Click to expand...


Oh, i'm holding my breath. What will be the outcome? :rolleyes:

Are there any new (post-2002) photos of KSM available?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Really? And what about "unlawful enemy combattants"?
Click to expand...


Until this tribunal determines his status, he has to be treated as a POW. If the tribunal determines he is an unlawful combatant, he has no rights under the Geneva Conventions or Hague Conventions, thus anything that is done to him cannot be a war crime. However I am sure there are US Laws about what can and cannot be done to him. I am not sure if there are any US civil laws prohibiting the release of photographs of prisoners.

-Gumboot
 
So what you're saying is if they determine that KSM and the others are POWs and not UECs, they are accusing themselves of grave breaches of the geneva convention, i.e. warcrimes like

- Torture or inhumane treatment
- Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
- Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

etc.

I agree. The status of "UEC" is btw a construct which is not known in international law - but of course you know that.
 
Childlike Empress said:
So what you're saying is if they determine that KSM and the others are POWs and not UECs, they are accusing themselves of grave breaches of the geneva convention, i.e. warcrimes like

- Torture or inhumane treatment
- Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
- Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

etc.

I agree. The status of "UEC" is btw a construct which is not known in international law - but of course you know that.
Click to expand...



Er...

"Unlawful Combatant" is defined in Article 48 of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions. It IS international law.

Whether they determine these people are unlawful combatants or not, any torturing that was done to them prior to this determination is still a warcrime as prior to their status being determined that have a default status of POW.

I'm not sure what you mean about "deprivation of fair trial". You can't put a POW on trial except for crimes they committed while detained. I doubt the detainess we're discussing had the opportunity to commit any US crimes since in US custody.

I also don't know what you mean by "unlawful deportation, confinement, or transfer".

By definition, the detainment of a POW is entirely legal. It is not only legal but a REQUIREMENT that you transport them AWAY from the combat zone. Indeed, keeping POWs inside the combat zone is a warcrime itself.

Torture and inhuman treatment are not rights specific to POWs. I think you will find other International Laws as well as domestic US laws make it illegal to torture people or treat them inhumanely.

I've said MANY times that the detainment and processing of the detainees is an ENTIRELY different matter to how they are treated WHILE detained.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Er...

"Unlawful Combatant" is defined in Article 48 of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions. It IS international law.
Click to expand...


No, that's not true. I assume you mean Art. 44 which deals with "Combatants" and POWs.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.
Click to expand...


So, the combatant decribed by the GC has nothing to do with the orwellian, basically rightless construct UEC made up by the Bush administration. In fact, this passage is the primary reason the US hasn't ratified the additional protocol to this day.
 
Childlike Empress said:
No, that's not true. I assume you mean Art. 44 which deals with "Combatants" and POWs.
Click to expand...



No. I'm not. The Geneva Convention and its additional protocols makes it VERY CLEAR who qualifies for protection and who does not.

By definition, any person who is not a civilian, nor a lawful combatant, is an unlawful combatant. An unlawful combatant is not protected under the Geneva Conventions and has no rights under the Geneva Conventions. A number of other international laws and treaties, as well as International Customary Law, provides them with the same basic rights that are universal to ALL human beings, and this protects them from such things as torture and starvation.

It doesn't protect them from being executed as an unlawful combatant, if this is the punishment in the United States for their actions.

Think of it this way.

If KSM is ruled to be a lawful combatant, he is a POW. He can be charged for any warcrimes he committed, and will be treated precisely the same way as a US soldier would be for having committed the same warcrimes. He cannot be charged for any legitimate military actions he took such as killing American soldiers. As there is now a legitimate government in Afghanistan, he should be repatriated to Afghanistan and tried and sentenced in that country by that country's government.

If it is determined he is an unlawful combatant he is not a POW. He is a common criminal, held by the United States. The United States can try him as they would any other US civilian who had committed said acts. He can be charged with murder for killing American soldiers, and can be charged for attacking American military equipment, for example. He does not get repatriated to Afghanistan, and he will serve his entire sentence in the United States, facing whatever sentencing is appropriate for the US (which means a high probability of execution).

In the event that he is determined to be an unlawful combatant, the United States can still CHOOSE to grant him POW status, in which case he will be treated accordingly. It is entirely at the US Government's discretion.

In the event that he is determined to be a POW, the Afghani government can demand repatriation so that they can put him on trial in their own country for warcrimes.

The United States can choose to refuse this demand for repatriation, however such actions usually aren't looked upon in an approving light by the international community.

Now, an issue you haven't raised... the people allegedly snatched by the CIA or whoever OUTSIDE Afghanistan and Iraq. These people have been abducted. Their detainment is illegal.

-Gumboot
 
Childlike Empress said:
In fact, this passage is the primary reason the US hasn't ratified the additional protocol to this day.
Click to expand...


It doesn't actually matter if the USA has ratified it or not. They are a signatory to it, and over half of the signatories have ratified it. Given that it is a Multilateral agreement, this means it is ratified as International Law, and if the USA fails to meet their obligations under the protocol they are guilty of committing warcrimes.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
It doesn't actually matter if the USA has ratified it or not. They are a signatory to it, and over half of the signatories have ratified it. Given that it is a Multilateral agreement, this means it is ratified as International Law, and if the USA fails to meet their obligations under the protocol they are guilty of committing warcrimes.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
The US, per Article II of the Constitution, is not bound by any treaty until it is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Click to expand...
 
gumboot said:
No. I'm not. The Geneva Convention and its additional protocols makes it VERY CLEAR who qualifies for protection and who does not.

By definition, any person who is not a civilian, nor a lawful combatant, is an unlawful combatant. An unlawful combatant is not protected under the Geneva Conventions and has no rights under the Geneva Conventions. A number of other international laws and treaties, as well as International Customary Law, provides them with the same basic rights that are universal to ALL human beings, and this protects them from such things as torture and starvation.
Click to expand...


Ok, it's not 44, not 48 (which has nothing to add to the topic). So please point me to the Article of the GC where it defines who is a "lawful" and who is an "unlawful" combatant.

gumboot said:
Think of it this way.

If KSM is ruled to be a lawful combatant, he is a POW. He can be charged for any warcrimes he committed, and will be treated precisely the same way as a US soldier would be for having committed the same warcrimes. He cannot be charged for any legitimate military actions he took such as killing American soldiers. As there is now a legitimate government in Afghanistan, he should be repatriated to Afghanistan and tried and sentenced in that country by that country's government.

If it is determined he is an unlawful combatant he is not a POW. He is a common criminal, held by the United States. The United States can try him as they would any other US civilian who had committed said acts. He can be charged with murder for killing American soldiers, and can be charged for attacking American military equipment, for example. He does not get repatriated to Afghanistan, and he will serve his entire sentence in the United States, facing whatever sentencing is appropriate for the US (which means a high probability of execution).

In the event that he is determined to be an unlawful combatant, the United States can still CHOOSE to grant him POW status, in which case he will be treated accordingly. It is entirely at the US Government's discretion.

In the event that he is determined to be a POW, the Afghani government can demand repatriation so that they can put him on trial in their own country for warcrimes.

The United States can choose to refuse this demand for repatriation, however such actions usually aren't looked upon in an approving light by the international community.

Now, an issue you haven't raised... the people allegedly snatched by the CIA or whoever OUTSIDE Afghanistan and Iraq. These people have been abducted. Their detainment is illegal.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


1. KSM isn't an Afghani.
2. He was not captured in Afghanistan.
3. He wasn't captured during the afghan war.

He was captured by pakistani security in Islamabad, Pakistan and handed over to the US in mid 2003. This makes him a suspected criminal who has to be tried and, if found guilty, convicted. Instead, he rotted several years in some secret detention camps without any rights and without any justice for his alleged victims.

Nothing complicated about that, gumboot. Whether they decide to give him the status of POW or their fake status "unlawful enemy combatant" really changes nothing but the fassade with which they camouflage their breach of international law through raw power.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
1. KSM isn't an Afghani.
2. He was not captured in Afghanistan.
3. He wasn't captured during the afghan war.

He was captured by pakistani security in Islamabad, Pakistan and handed over to the US in mid 2003. This makes him a suspected criminal who has to be tried and, if found guilty, convicted. Instead, he rotted several years in some secret detention camps without any rights and without any justice for his alleged victims.
Click to expand...
The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed on September 18, 2001 defines the scope of the war:
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Click to expand...
The war zone is defined as where the enemy ("nations, organizations, or persons") is - not necessarily in Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan is not mentioned anywhere in the AUMF.
 
snip:
. . . the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force . . .
Click to expand...
I don't see how making up fake status or prisoner abuse can be considered 'appropriate'. Seems to me that the authorization, by use of the term 'appropriate', would require abiding by existing laws and regulations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom