European BDS

[Tailgater]

However it came about it seems to me that they are now refugees and the US obligation to them is clear. It really doesn't matter if it is a good idea or not

Yes, which I said in a previous post.

"They should be set free, but unfortunately they have the potential to use that training."

 

[WildCat]

No of course not. Your quotes directly contradict your assertion

Bizarre.

 

[Fiona]

They were picked up there fleeing from a camp in Afganistan to escape bombings from the US, where they were being trained by the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which is responsible for terrorist acts in China. They admitted to joining the camp and having weapons training. They just never had a chance to use that training. Of course it might have been against the Chinese, so I guess you could argue that dead Chinese would have been more acceptable in letting them go. What do you say, hmm? Lets just let them go here. I say Chinatown with a sign around their necks.

Do you then believe we should imprison people for crimes they might commit? Scary stuff

ETA: sorry. I missed your clear statement that they should be set free now. I do not think they should have been detained for this length of time and they could not have been had they been held under us domestic law: but we seem to be agreed about the current position and I apologise for misinterpreting your stance

 

[drkitten]

They were picked up there fleeing from a camp in Afganistan to escape bombings from the US, where they were being trained by the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which is responsible for terrorist acts in China.

... which, under international law, makes them no longer Afghanistan's problem.

Are you going to return them to Pakistan? They don't want them either.

Are you going to smuggle them in by stealth? That's a good precedent to set. Think of how much fun the Chinese could have smuggling their murderers and such into the US.

 

[drkitten]

You have just pointed out the problem: either the law is a ass, which I find a likely case (refugees, are they?) or we have a UNSC member who you can't trust to take care of its people.

Both.

But you go to court with the law you have, not the law you want to have. How many of the "I don't have to pay income tax because [spurious argument]" have you seen here? Don't make yourself into one of those.

The US has been dealt a very bad hand here. It's at least partly self-inflicted, because the hand has been played so badly. But at this point there is only one legal way to play it out.

 

[Tailgater]

Do you then believe we should imprison people for crimes they might commit? Scary stuff

You must have read the invisible lines between sentences. I don't remember typing that. I've now said more than once they should be let go. They never should have been taken in the first place. If the US would not have taken them, they would either be in a Pakistan prison or dead/fighting along the border instead of getting a shot at living in the US.

ETA:sorry for jumping on you before you had a chance to fix that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Both.

But you go to court with the law you have, not the law you want to have. How many of the "I don't have to pay income tax because [spurious argument]" have you seen here? Don't make yourself into one of those.

The US has been dealt a very bad hand here. It's at least partly self-inflicted, because the hand has been played so badly. But at this point there is only one legal way to play it out.

Fairly said, in particular the bold. *tips cap*

That does not excuse what I was pointing to in the OP about this leak on a deal that isn't. It was deliberate carping about Bush for no particular reason other than he is Bush. As I suggested, given the state of play, all that need have been released, if anything, is the positive spin: We look forward to working with Obama on this.

DR

 

[Tailgater]

... which, under international law, makes them no longer Afghanistan's problem.

Are you going to return them to Pakistan? They don't want them either.

Are you going to smuggle them in by stealth? That's a good precedent to set. Think of how much fun the Chinese could have smuggling their murderers and such into the US.

So now they are murderers? Look how far you've come in this thread.

 

[WildCat]

Once again, to help with drkitten's reading comprehension problem:

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705

 

[Fiona]

The ICRC notes, in the article Wildcat linked,

The ICRC has repeatedly called for a determination of the precise legal status of each individual held at Guantanamo Bay, as well as for a determination of the legal framework applicable to all persons held in the fight against terrorism by the US authorities.

Yes they are protected by the fourth Geneva Convention: they are Protected persons, as defined in it.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Art. 7. In addition to the agreements expressly provided for in Articles 11, 14, 15, 17, 36, 108, 109, 132, 133 and 149, the High Contracting Parties may conclude other special agreements for all matters concerning which they may deem it suitable to make separate provision. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of protected persons, as defined by the present Convention, not restrict the rights which it confers upon them.

Art. 9. The present Convention shall be applied with the cooperation and under the scrutiny of the Protecting Powers whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of the Parties to the conflict. For this purpose, the Protecting Powers may appoint, apart from their diplomatic or consular staff, delegates from amongst their own nationals or the nationals of other neutral Powers. The said delegates shall be subject to the approval of the Power with which they are to carry out their duties.

The Parties to the conflict shall facilitate to the greatest extent possible the task of the representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers.

Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

Art. 43. Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit.

ARt 45.........In no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

Art. 78. If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.

Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay. In the event of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject to periodical review, if possible every six months, by a competent body set up by the said Power.

Protected persons made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall enjoy the full benefit of Article 39 of the present Convention.

Art. 79. The Parties to the conflict shall not intern protected persons, except in accordance with the provisions of Articles 41, 42, 43, 68 and 78.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Au contraire.

I will grant you this. You are the most rational Bush apologist on this forum.

But a Bush apologist you are and remain. I've read too many of your posts.

Wrong to the core. Name calling and pigeon hole diving for fifty, Alex.

Read you do. Comprehend is rarely a problem of yours.

Be very clear on this: attempting to be objective about anything Bush has done in this arena, -- much of which pisses me off starting with his horsecarp guns and butter policy dating back to 2002 -- immediately attracts the accusation of being an apologist from critics of Bush.

I've been watching this since I got here. It's been pissing me off since I got here and the first pair of arseholes tried it with that pigeon hole. Your use of that term is not only dishonest, it isn't true.

My attempts to enter discussion when the emotion runs so high, which with Bush as the topic is time and again, stumble across emotionally wrecked failures in analysis. So now from you, of all people, the idiots false dichotomy charge of

If you aren't condeming him, you must be for him.

Gee, that's funny, we see it for what it is:

You are for me or against me.
If you aren't against me, you must be for me

kitten, you just used Bush level thinking to play an idiot's ad hom card. That isn't kitten standard.

Wrong, which for you is very rare.

I invite you to turn to the Community Forum, and the Nova Land post I nommed for this month's TLA.

You just fell into the trap Nova Land was describing.

I am glad we had this conversation. I can finally put my finger on what bugged be about that story. Bush is in lame dick duck status. Had the deal been doable with him it would already have been done. It isn't, or wasn't. To get in a cheap shot, however, someone had to send one more stream of "I don't like Bush" into the media. Mind you, nothing is pending. The article isn't about anything actually happening.

As if anyone with a clue didn't know that in eight years, "I don't like Bush" is a pretty common feeling among European and NATO leadership. Hell, among Americans. Among people in uniform, and who have since left, you might be surprised at how disappointing he's been. He and his team have, far too often, tried to use the Uniform of others as a fig leaf behind which to operate. Used is a verb he has taken to new meaning.

Whoever coined BDS originally may have been guilty of overstatement, but its core description of a verbal/written behavior is apt enough for public utterances that have polluted my life since he was elected. The emotional pissing and moaning "theocracy is coming" crap, for starters. I suggest that you get a grip on what has gone down, kitten. Eight years of this, a smoke screen through which reasoned discussion and critique has to fight.

Go read the recently resurrected thread thaiboxerken started in 2004 with its inane predictions (And a few solid ones, to include two from Ken) by some allegedly sharp and wise old skeptical heads. The evidence is obvious: JREF "skeptics" also come up with some of the most inane prospects I've seen intelligent people come up with. Where does this emotionally driven tripe come from?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30300

Personalized, emotional distress over this caricature of evil, George W Bush, a guy who is, without question, the Peter Principle come to life in the Oval Office. Nastily personal vitriol, loaded with emotion, that contaminates any discussion of the issues.

Reasoned criticism is good, and luckily for critics, Bush has provided ample fodder. More than ample.

Please feel free to check out my post a few weeks back on the ODS coming up from the usual suspects. And guess what? It's coming. I can't stop it. You can't stop it. It's just there. I am not afraid to call it what it is. And it pisses me off.

As John Wayne said about JFK: "I didn't vote for him, but by God he's my president now."

Do I over state the case in the thread title? Maybe. Might be a touch of hyperbole in the air.

DR

 

[WildCat]

The ICRC notes, in the article Wildcat linked,

And their status was determined by competent tribunals. Perhaps you missed the last 6 years of legal wrangling over this?

Yes they are protected by the fourth Geneva Convention: they are Protected persons, as defined in it.

And as the ICRC notes, you can be a protected person while still not having POW status. They may also be tried for war crimes.

I have no idea what point you thought you were making there.

 

[ddt]

I see Wildcat indeed tries to turn this thread into a discussion on the legality of Gitmo. I guess he forgot the beating he got from Kevin_Lowe and Wolfman in the last thread about this topic.

Of course, it's not just the 17 Uighurs we're talking here about. For them, the illegality of their detainment has already been established. But there are still about 600 detainees in Gitmo, and the latest estimates I've heard were that about 90% would somehow be set free without a trial as the prosecution already deems them innocent and doesn't want to run a trial. Many of them (don't know the numbers) are already deemed innocent years ago but nevertheless are still detained as the Bush administration doesn't know well what to do with them. For many of them, their home countries are less enthusiastic about letting them return home, to say the least.

It's a problem the US (the Bush administration) heaped entirely on itself by not thinking this whole thing through from the beginning - and who the hell thought of giving the Pakistanis a $ 5,000 bounty per prisoner? It would be only from the kindness of their heart if the EU helps solving this problem. So the EU is free to set whatever conditions it wants for its help - the fact that they have international law on their side is just the icing on the cake, but even if this were not the case, the EU is free to say "we don't like Gitmo - stop with it if you want us to help you out".

Have the parties involved thought about how this would look like in the European press? Public opinion isn't already too favourable towards asylum seekers (and that's what they would be), and then we're supposed to accept asylum seekers from the US?

As to the Uighurs' training, Tailgater's worry is noted. Maybe they could enlist in the Dutch army - it has 7,000 vacancies and can't get them filled despite extensive ad campaigns. They could then even be sent out to Afghanistan for peace keeping.

 

[WildCat]

I see Wildcat indeed tries to turn this thread into a discussion on the legality of Gitmo. I guess he forgot the beating he got from Kevin_Lowe and Wolfman in the last thread about this topic.

Funny, I seem to recall that discussion ending up rather differently. Maybe you'll be the first one to show the ICRC document declaring the detentions in Gitmo illegal? Maybe you'll be the first one to show a final court ruling that the detentions are illegal and ordering all of them released? Of course you won't, because you can't.

There were court cases over procedure, but there was never a court determination that the US had no right to detain unlawful combatants, nor one ordering them to have POW status.

Of course, it's not just the 17 Uighurs we're talking here about. For them, the illegality of their detainment has already been established. But there are still about 600 detainees in Gitmo, and the latest estimates I've heard were that about 90% would somehow be set free without a trial as the prosecution already deems them innocent and doesn't want to run a trial.

I see you share drkitten's reading comprehension problems. There are currently 250 detainees at Gitmo. Of those 250, 60 have been cleared for release but there are problems finding a country to take them. The other 190 are either awaiting trial or have been found to be too much of a security risk to release. There was never a plan to charge or try everyone who was ever at Gitmo, nor is there any legal requirement to.

And as I stated earlier, the vast majority of those who were detained at Gitmo have already been released after a determination that they were no longer a threat. Note this is not the same thing as saying they weren't ever a threat.

 

[Fiona]

Wildcat what is it you don't understand? NOBODY is saying they are POW's. What I am saying is that they are either POW's or they are Protected Persons: they cannot be both. And they cannot be anything else either. Don't you read your own links?

As to finding a country to take them? That would be the USA

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat what is it you don't understand? NOBODY is saying they are POW's. What I am saying is that they are either POW's or they are Protected Persons: they cannot be both. And they cannot be anything else either. Don't you read your own links?

I do. However, protected persons may still be held without charges until either the hostilities end (upper limit) or it is is determined they are no longer a threat (lower limit). They may also be charged and tried with war crimes, in which case a conviction allows them to be held until their sentence is over.

As to finding a country to take them? That would be the USA

Maybe, maybe not. Long way to go before that is resolved.

 

[Fiona]

Yes they can: see articles 42 and 43 of the convention and the others I linked. What is your point?

 

[WildCat]

Yes they can: see articles 42 and 43 of the convention and the others I linked. What is your point?

That the detentions at Gitmo are not illegal.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Of course, it's not just the 17 Uighurs we're talking here about.

Funny, I established that I wished to discuss them, early on. Who are you again? It's a thing called "limiting the scope of a discussion." See post number four of this thread.

I am going to focus on the Uighurs, since they are declared non combatants. Bush has been trying to let them go, and IIRC tends to agree with the EU that they can't send them back to China as China may well smite them mightily, etc. But EU won't take them. I suspect there is fear of China in this, and using the Uighurs as a stick in the eye of Bush.

But there are still about 600 detainees in Gitmo

Nope

about 90% would somehow be set free without a trial

Nope

as the prosecution already deems them innocent

Nope, can't get a conviction does not equal innocent.

and doesn't want to run a trial.

You may be right about that. We shall see.

Many of them (don't know the numbers) are already deemed innocent years ago but nevertheless are still detained as the Bush administration doesn't know well what to do with them.

Deemed innocent? ddt, what do you mean?

For many of them, their home countries are less enthusiastic about letting them return home, to say the least.

Why is that? Does it occur to you that this may account for why they were captured and held in the first place?

It's a problem the US (the Bush administration) heaped entirely on itself by not thinking this whole thing through from the beginning

We Agree!

- and who the hell thought of giving the Pakistanis a $ 5,000 bounty per prisoner?

And then, who did any vetting of those rounded up? Indeed, a root cause issue rarely discussed.

It would be only from the kindness of their heart if the EU helps solving this problem.

I think that EU is an incorrect determination, and I may have started that. The article only indicated "some European countries" and so we should leave it at that, Germany and Portugal being cited in print.

So the EU is free to set whatever conditions it wants for its help - the fact that they have international law on their side is just the icing on the cake, but even if this were not the case, the EU is free to say "we don't like Gitmo - stop with it if you want us to help you out".

Aye.

As to the Uighurs' training, Tailgater's worry is noted. Maybe they could enlist in the Dutch army - it has 7,000 vacancies and can't get them filled despite extensive ad campaigns. They could then even be sent out to Afghanistan for peace keeping.

*snort*

DR

 

[Fiona]

That the detentions at Gitmo are not illegal.

Well if you keep re-writing the law to make it so you might get there in the end: not yet though. I think they missed their chance.