Pentagon has been manipulating TV coverage

[SoBitter]

Are you aware that Geneva Conventions-protected POW's do not get lawyers or trials? Why, then, would enemy combatants who are not entitled to those protections get even more rights? You are complaining about a depirvation of rights that never existed.

Others have responded to this, but not exactly in the manner that I would have, so I'll just say that regardless of whether they are covered by the Geneva Convention or not, they have NO rights. Their rights consist of what we decide they deserve, which right now is nothing except food and water. If we decide they get a tribunal, they get one, if not, they continue to sit in their cells. 5 out of 270 have had a tribunal. I want these people to have SOME rights, as in, the basic personal right to be free from captors. Without any standard of justice or due process, we have essentially kidnapped 270 people.

They are being deprived of their previously existing rights... all those which they had before we imprisoned them.

 

[GreyICE]

Uh oh. Don't take this the wrong way, GreyICE, but are you a 9/11 "truther"? I'd thought they all went extinct after they were proven wrong after so many times. If you are not, my apologies ahead of time.

Don't take this the wrong way, but did you get dropped on your head as a child once too often?

One of those statements was more offensive than the other, and I don't think it was mine. Apologies don't really help.

Bush didn't declare war because he didn't want to subject the 'evidence' he had for invading Iraq to the sort of scrutiny a declaration of war would have caused. I don't know if you noticed, but the claims about Iraq? Not so much with the accuracy. I have no idea why you'd jump to 'troofer' as a conclusion, when the obvious thought to anyone thinking about it would be 'hey, those chemical weapons claims? Yeah...'

 

[Ziggurat]

Bush didn't declare war because he didn't want to subject the 'evidence' he had for invading Iraq to the sort of scrutiny a declaration of war would have caused.

It's already been pointed out that the president is not capable of declaring war. The constitution gives that power to one branch of government, and one branch alone, and it's not the executive.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes they do. But they do not apply to non-signatories who do not abide by the conventions.

Afghanistan and Iraq both signed the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of POWs.

Congress has already addressed this issue, and they are indeed getting tribunals.

Existing law already specified that tribunals were required. But since you believe in the rule of men and not the rule of law, you probably don't care.

I note that you apparently agree with me, however, that prisoners of war (Geneva conventions-protected or not) are not entitled to lawyers or trials.

Prisoners of war can be held without trial, but can't be punished without due process. The conditions at Gitmo don't meet the standards for housing POWs. So in fact they are being punished without due process.

 

[Ziggurat]

Afghanistan and Iraq both signed the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of POWs.

Iraqi military personel were given full Geneva conventions-protected POW status, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. And leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, they did not abide by the conventions and so largely forfeited any protections.

Prisoners of war can be held without trial, but can't be punished without due process. The conditions at Gitmo don't meet the standards for housing POWs.

Those two sentences don't actually have any logical connection to each other. For example, for Geneva-conventions protected POW's there are a number of criteria (such as the distribution of "collective relief") whose absence cannot be considered punishment in and of itself. Does their housing meet Geneva Convention POW status? No. Does it need to? No. Does its failure to constitute punishment? You've got to make a case for why it constitutes punishment beyond detention (since detention itself can certainly be viewed as punishment), and you have not.

 

[GreyICE]

It's already been pointed out that the president is not capable of declaring war. The constitution gives that power to one branch of government, and one branch alone, and it's not the executive.

Uh, exactly. And if congress had subject his evidence for WMDs to serious scrutiny, the evidence would have folded. Do I need to spell this out?

Why are you correcting me on things that are obvious? Is this national be a condescending jerk day? That's my job!

 

[GreyICE]

Iraqi military personel were given full Geneva conventions-protected POW status, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. And leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, they did not abide by the conventions and so largely forfeited any protections.



Those two sentences don't actually have any logical connection to each other. For example, for Geneva-conventions protected POW's there are a number of criteria (such as the distribution of "collective relief") whose absence cannot be considered punishment in and of itself. Does their housing meet Geneva Convention POW status? No. Does it need to? No. Does its failure to constitute punishment? You've got to make a case for why it constitutes punishment beyond detention (since detention itself can certainly be viewed as punishment), and you have not.

The Geneva Convention applies to the prisoners of war. In Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that Geneva 3 applies to the prisoners of war. There is no higher body, the case is over.

Guantanamo Bay is covered by the Geneva conventions, and is in violation of them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why are you correcting me on things that are obvious?

Why did you write things which were obviously nonsense in the first place? I do not know the answer to that question, and in the absence of such an answer, a correction to that nonsense seemed rather appropriate. If you choose to supply me with an answer as to why you wrote obvious nonsense, I will consider refraining from correcting your obvious nonsense. But it might just be easier to not write obvious nonsense to begin with.

 

[GreyICE]

Why did you write things which were obviously nonsense in the first place? I do not know the answer to that question, and in the absence of such an answer, a correction to that nonsense seemed rather appropriate. If you choose to supply me with an answer as to why you wrote obvious nonsense, I will consider refraining from correcting your obvious nonsense. But it might just be easier to not write obvious nonsense to begin with.

The president may request a declaration of war from congress. Bush could have done this. He chose not to to avoid the scrutiny his claims would have come under, because they were false.

Of course the conservative nitpicking brigade being what it is, I'm glad you've found your nit to pick.

P.S. The supreme court still thinks Guantanamo bay falls under the Geneva Convention. Nice dodge.

 

[Kestrel]

Iraqi military personel were given full Geneva conventions-protected POW status, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. And leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, they did not abide by the conventions and so largely forfeited any protections.

Nations sign treaties, not political parties. That the Taliban was in power when we invaded is irrelevant. Just as it doesn't matter that the Republicans were in power when we invaded, but they were not when the US signed the GC in 1949.

As for abiding by the provisions of the GC, that has to be decided for each individual prisoner. George W. Bush declaring them all guilty as a class isn't enough.

Those two sentences don't actually have any logical connection to each other. For example, for Geneva-conventions protected POW's there are a number of criteria (such as the distribution of "collective relief") whose absence cannot be considered punishment in and of itself. Does their housing meet Geneva Convention POW status? No. Does it need to? No. Does its failure to constitute punishment? You've got to make a case for why it constitutes punishment beyond detention (since detention itself can certainly be viewed as punishment), and you have not.

The Geneva Conventions and US Military Law require a tribunal be held before treating a prisoner picked up during an armed conflict as something besides a POW. The standards for how a POW must be treated are also spelled out in both the GC and US Military Law. Tribunals were never held for the prisoners at Gitmo, nor does the camp meet the standards for how POWs should be treated. We had two ways of following the law and didn't bother doing either.

 

[Ziggurat]

The president may request a declaration of war from congress. Bush could have done this. He chose not to to avoid the scrutiny his claims would have come under, because they were false.

Requesting a declaration is different than making a declaration, and don't blame me for the fact that you couldn't keep that rather important difference sorted out. And there are other reasons to use the 1973 war powers act rather than a formal declaration, including the fact that a formal declaration gives the president powers that are unnecessary at this point (such as the ability to commandeer merchant ships). Bush had statutory authorization (which he did request), and short of a war with another major power (ie, China), you will probably never see a formal declaration of war (rather than a statutory authorization) ever again.

 

[Don At Work]

Iraqi military personel were given full Geneva conventions-protected POW status, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. And leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, they did not abide by the conventions and so largely forfeited any protections.

(snip)

Wrong. Just because they violated the convention does NOT mean that they forfeit the protections of the same. "They broke the rules, so they no longer apply" simply isn't true.

 

[GreyICE]

Requesting a declaration is different than making a declaration, and don't blame me for the fact that you couldn't keep that rather important difference sorted out. And there are other reasons to use the 1973 war powers act rather than a formal declaration, including the fact that a formal declaration gives the president powers that are unnecessary at this point (such as the ability to commandeer merchant ships). Bush had statutory authorization (which he did request), and short of a war with another major power (ie, China), you will probably never see a formal declaration of war (rather than a statutory authorization) ever again.

So the fact that it gives the president powers he doesn't actually need is a reason not to declare war? Has there ever been a war where the President used absolutely every power granted to him under wartime conditions? That's a complete, total, and utter dodge.

As for a formal declaration of war, why not? Because we don't want the bad press? A war is a war, why not declare it? Historically, it has been used, its only in the latter half of this century that we've been afraid to declare war, mainly because lack of popular support.

This misguided, stupid action and deception by Bush merely underscores the need for us to consider our wars, an action a formal declaration would give us.


P.P.S. Guantanamo Bay is still covered by the Geneva Convention as ruled by the Supreme Court. Wasn't overturned yet...

 

[Ziggurat]

So the fact that it gives the president powers he doesn't actually need is a reason not to declare war?

From Congress' point of view? Hell yes. And it's not just the president himself who gets more powers, but the executive branch in general

Has there ever been a war where the President used absolutely every power granted to him under wartime conditions?

There have been wars where presidents used more powers than were consitutionally available to them. Lincoln and FDR come to mind.

As for a formal declaration of war, why not? Because we don't want the bad press?

Don't be stupid. The whole bloody world knew we were at war. The lack of a formal declaration of such did nothing to deflect bad press, I know of no one who thought it would deflect bad press, and there's no evidence or even a coherent argument to indicate that the decision was made in order to avoid bad press.

A war is a war, why not declare it? Historically, it has been used, its only in the latter half of this century that we've been afraid to declare war, mainly because lack of popular support.

Many of the laws I refered to (in terms of granting the executive branch additional powers) were enacted during WWII. That is why we've had no formal declaration of war since.

This misguided, stupid action and deception by Bush merely underscores the need for us to consider our wars, an action a formal declaration would give us.

Except in terms of process, it would be exactly the same: Bush would go to Congress with a proposed bill, Congress would debate it, and they would either pass it or not pass it. Everyone knew that the AUMF meant war. There's no reason to think that Congress making a formal declaration of war would have automatically made their decision-making process any more informed or wise.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrong. Just because they violated the convention does NOT mean that they forfeit the protections of the same.

Actually, it largely does. POW's cannot be summarily executed. Saboteurs and other combatants disguised as civilians can be. It's true that a given combatant doesn't forfeit protections based on the violation of other combatants on his side (including his superiors), but that's not what I'm refering to.

 

[GreyICE]

Actually, it largely does. POW's cannot be summarily executed. Saboteurs and other combatants disguised as civilians can be. It's true that a given combatant doesn't forfeit protections based on the violation of other combatants on his side (including his superiors), but that's not what I'm refering to.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld still says the Supreme Court thinks you're wrong. And until we get a constitutional amendment, they're kind of the last word on the subject.

I'll respond to the war stuff later, but I just wanted to respond to this, which is so obviously wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hamdan v Rumsfeld still says the Supreme Court thinks you're wrong.

Not quite. The main consequence of the decision was that the tribunal process had to be specified by congress. The violation of the geneva conventions related to the process of deciding the status of a given prisoner. It did not say illegal combatants (those who do not follow the convention) still get full Geneva convention POW protections. As I said before, the conventions themselves authorize summary execution for certain classes of combatants (such as saboteurs and spies).

 

[GreyICE]

Not quite. The main consequence of the decision was that the tribunal process had to be specified by congress. The violation of the geneva conventions related to the process of deciding the status of a given prisoner. It did not say illegal combatants (those who do not follow the convention) still get full Geneva convention POW protections. As I said before, the conventions themselves authorize summary execution for certain classes of combatants (such as saboteurs and spies).

Actually, it's a little bit broader. To quote from the text,

Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, asindicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guar-antees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

Common Article 3, therefore, applies.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

See anything there we might be violating?

Furthermore, by banning the Red Cross from certain areas, we violate this part of Article 3:

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

Oh yeah, and we also have to do this:

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

How much effort have we made to bring other parts of the convention into force?

 

[Ziggurat]

See anything there we might be violating?

Yeah, ummm... the supreme court didn't rule that conditions at Guantanamo constituted cruel treatment, torture, or outrages upon personal dignity. Hamden was about process, not conditions.

Furthermore, by banning the Red Cross from certain areas, we violate this part of Article 3:

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

May offer its services. This passage does not place a hard requirement on us for non-POW prisoners.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

Yeah, because you know those Taliban, they're just begging to get a chance to abide by the Geneva conventions, we just won't let them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is this thread about the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo or is it about the Bush administration's unprecedented use of propaganda to manipulate public opinion in the US?