"Bad" people go to Gitmo?

[CFLarsen]

"Bad" people go to Gitmo?

People need to understand that detainees at Guantánamo Bay are "bad people", the US vice president, Dick Cheney, will say in an interview to be broadcast tonight as pressure grows for the detention centre to close.
Source

OK, Dickie. We get it: You don't like them. So, they go to Gitmo, indefinitely.

But are they guilty of something? Or do we just get used to people being locked up because someone thinks they are "bad"?

Aren't we lowering the expectations on when people are incarcerated just a wee bit here?

Who will be next? Those on Santa's list of "Naughty"?

Let's talk legalities here. What are the legal reasons for keeping citizens from other nations incarcerated indefinitely, without a fair trial?

Are they needed at all?

 

[Grammatron]

Let's talk legalities here. What are the legal reasons for keeping citizens from other nations incarcerated indefinitely, without a fair trial?

We have, many times, there are about three threads right now that deal with that debate. However I'll sum it up for you since I'm in a good mood, I'll even use the quotes from the article you quoted:

These are people that were captured in the battlefield of Afghanistan or rounded up as part of the al-Qaida network.

That's the legalities part as it stands right now, of course given the challenges in the federal court it may change in the future.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's the legalities part as it stands right now, of course given the challenges in the federal court it may change in the future.

It's now mid-2005. How much longer before any of the detainees (oh, sorry: "BAD PEOPLE") are charged with anything?

 

[Grammatron]

It's now mid-2005. How much longer before any of the detainees (oh, sorry: "BAD PEOPLE") are charged with anything?

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[corplinx]

It's now mid-2005. How much longer before any of the detainees (oh, sorry: "BAD PEOPLE") are charged with anything?

One of the detainees was the so-called 20th hijacker. Some of Osama's bodyguards are also held here. I think it best that these enemy combatants not be tried in the US justice system but before a military tribunal once their intelligence value is no longer useful.

And yes, these are indeed BAD people. There were people mistakenly held at Gitmo and it is a shame that unscrupulous Afghans had them sent there.

I am not sure but the 911 mastermind himself may be held at Gitmo. And yes Claus, he is BAD and no he does not belong in the US justice system.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's now mid-2005. How much longer before any of the detainees (oh, sorry: "BAD PEOPLE") are charged with anything?

This idea of "being charged" is a holdover from civilian law. This is not a case of civilian law. There should be due process, and in fact there IS a requirement for due process, and it's being carried out. But that due process is not the same as for civilians. In case you didn't know, we don't "charge" POW's with anything at all. They are simply POW's, and we hold them until the war is over, and they never have a trial. That has always been the case. In the case of unlawful combatants, why should we need to give them greater legal protections than POW's? Yes, we need a screening process, but we've GOT one. The only real complaint here is that this process is not as transparent as you want it to be. So make THAT your complaint - because honestly, your current complaint that they aren't being charged simply doesn't matter.

 

[Manny]

In case you didn't know, we don't "charge" POW's with anything at all. They are simply POW's, and we hold them until the war is over, and they never have a trial.

This is my big beef with the people who have problems with Guantanamo. Suppose we answer all the objections and say, "You know what, you're right. They're POWs now." Then what?

Well, the US is severely limited in how much the detainees can be interrogated, that's for sure. Do people really want that?

Their quarters have to be upgraded to equal those of enlisted military personnel on the base. Um, OK.

When the war ends, they go home. When is the war over? Where is home? Most of these guys were caught in Afghanistan, which was not their home country. Do we send them back to Afghanistan? How do you think they'll fare? Their home countries? We're doing that with some; with others we can't on account of they'd be executed on the tarmac.

Yeah, there's legal ambiguities with the Guantanamo prisoners. We didn't create those ambiguities; they did. The Geneva Conventions were designed for the actual, uniformed armies which represented actual, recognized countries. Under the Geneva Conventions, the proper legal thing for the United States to have done with these guys was to execute them immediately after a quick trial conducted by junior officers on the scene in Afghanistan. Is that really what the people complaining would have wanted?

Heck, 5 percent or so of the guys released have already rejoined the fighting. How many times do US forces have to capture or kill the same guys?

 

[Grammatron]

Heck, 5 percent or so of the guys released have already rejoined the fighting. How many times do US forces have to capture or kill the same guys?

I'm fairly certain that we only have to kill thesame guys once. Unless you're suggesting we're fighting undead terrorists?

 

[Manny]

The zombie Ninja pirate terrorists are the worst of all.

 

[CFLarsen]

One of the detainees was the so-called 20th hijacker. Some of Osama's bodyguards are also held here. I think it best that these enemy combatants not be tried in the US justice system but before a military tribunal once their intelligence value is no longer useful.

And yes, these are indeed BAD people. There were people mistakenly held at Gitmo and it is a shame that unscrupulous Afghans had them sent there.

I am not sure but the 911 mastermind himself may be held at Gitmo. And yes Claus, he is BAD and no he does not belong in the US justice system.

So......what do you suggest is done? Nothing?

 

[CFLarsen]

This idea of "being charged" is a holdover from civilian law. This is not a case of civilian law. There should be due process, and in fact there IS a requirement for due process, and it's being carried out.

Really? Have any charges been filed? How are the court proceedings going? Any verdicts coming?

But that due process is not the same as for civilians. In case you didn't know, we don't "charge" POW's with anything at all. They are simply POW's, and we hold them until the war is over, and they never have a trial.

Is the US at war with Afghanistan? Yes or no.

That has always been the case. In the case of unlawful combatants

Please provide the legal precedence of that term.

why should we need to give them greater legal protections than POW's? Yes, we need a screening process, but we've GOT one. The only real complaint here is that this process is not as transparent as you want it to be. So make THAT your complaint - because honestly, your current complaint that they aren't being charged simply doesn't matter.

Really? Are you serious? You really don't have a problem with people being detained and interred indefinitely, with no charges?

 

[CFLarsen]

Most of these guys were caught in Afghanistan, which was not their home country.

How do you know that? AFAIK, there has never been a publicized list of the identities of the prisoners.

Do we send them back to Afghanistan? How do you think they'll fare? Their home countries? We're doing that with some; with others we can't on account of they'd be executed on the tarmac.

Why is that a concern, when there is no concern when sending people back to Cuba?

Yeah, there's legal ambiguities with the Guantanamo prisoners. We didn't create those ambiguities; they did.

Who?? The detainees? How so? Who introduced the term "unlawful combatants" in this conflict?

The Geneva Conventions were designed for the actual, uniformed armies which represented actual, recognized countries. Under the Geneva Conventions, the proper legal thing for the United States to have done with these guys was to execute them immediately after a quick trial conducted by junior officers on the scene in Afghanistan. Is that really what the people complaining would have wanted?

You need to read up on the Geneva Convention (singular, not plural). It was designed for people taking action in combat.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Source

Heck, 5 percent or so of the guys released have already rejoined the fighting. How many times do US forces have to capture or kill the same guys?

Are they covered by the Geneva Convention, yes or no?

 

[Grammatron]

Are they covered by the Geneva Convention, yes or no?

No.

 

[CFLarsen]

No.

Why not?

Please make extented use of actual quotes from the Geneva Convention, and compare it to the actual actions of the prisoners.

Otherwise, you'd just be spouting unsupported opinions, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

 

[Grammatron]

Why not?

Please make extented use of actual quotes from the Geneva Convention, and compare it to the actual actions of the prisoners.

Otherwise, you'd just be spouting unsupported opinions, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I direct your attention to the Article 4, specifically (b) and (c).

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Are they covered by the Geneva Convention, yes or no?

No, the conventions are very specifc about who they cover, and these guys don't qulaify.

From Convention III, Article 4, which delineates who is considered a prisoner of war.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(b) and (d) trip them up for the most part.

 

[Luke T.]

You need to read up on the Geneva Convention (singular, not plural). It was designed for people taking action in combat.

Um, perhaps you can explain to us ignoramuses what the term "High Contracting Parties" from the quotes you posted means?

Are any of the detainees "high contracting parties"?

Edited to add: If detainees are not a high contracting pary, do they meet the requirement "if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof"?

 

[Manny]

How do you know that? AFAIK, there has never been a publicized list of the identities of the prisoners.

The Pentagon has declined to identify the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan during and after the 2001 war there.

Why is that a concern, when there is no concern when sending people back to Cuba?

The possibility of punishment upon return is indeed a concern when sending people back to Cuba, unless they successfully achieve landfall in which case they are allowed to remain regardless.

Who?? The detainees? How so? Who introduced the term "unlawful combatants" in this conflict?

They don't fall into any of the Protected Persons enumerated in Article 4 of the convention you cited.

You need to read up on the Geneva Convention (singular, not plural). It was designed for people taking action in combat.

No it wasn't. It was designed for people taking action in legal combat (or, in cases where the combat itself was illegal, under color of a legitimate army to whom the combatants owed a duty of loyalty).

Are they covered by the Geneva Convention, yes or no? [/B]

No, for the reasons I said.

I've answered your questions, now answer mine. What do you think would happen if the US announced tomorrow that the Guantanamo detainees are POWs? Do you think they'd be released, or would even those who have been released to date remain detained under your scenario? What do you think should happen?

 

[CBL4]

From my very limited knowledge of the Vietnam War, I seem to remember that the Viet Cong often did not have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." Did we treat them as POW or as enemy combatants?

Also, the point of the Geneva Convention is to apply more principals in combat. In many respects, this is an absurdity (e.g. I want to kill you but I need to do it nicely) but it is a good moral goal.

If you want to argue legalese, that fine but if you want to appear to be a moral person, you also need to discuss the ethical issue of indefinite detainment without access to a lawyer or trial.

Civilized nations have rules for treating criminals and soldiers. Even if this people are neither, we need to have a moral way of treating them. Bush and the congress should do this instead of pretending that they have no rights except was Bush gives them out of the goodness of his heart.

CBL

 

[Nyarlathotep]

From my very limited knowledge of the Vietnam War, I seem to remember that the Viet Cong often did not have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." Did we treat them as POW or as enemy combatants?

I have no idea and it is irrelevant anyway. Even if we treated them as POWs, there is nothing saying you can't treat captured prisoners better than the law obligates you to. And choosing to do so for whatever reason in one conflict does not obligate us to do the same in the next.

Also, the point of the Geneva Convention is to apply more principals in combat. In many respects, this is an absurdity (e.g. I want to kill you but I need to do it nicely) but it is a good moral goal.

If you want to argue legalese, that fine but if you want to appear to be a moral person, you also need to discuss the ethical issue of indefinite detainment without access to a lawyer or trial.

Civilized nations have rules for treating criminals and soldiers. Even if this people are neither, we need to have a moral way of treating them. Bush and the congress should do this instead of pretending that they have no rights except was Bush gives them out of the goodness of his heart.

CBL

The moral and ethical issues of how we should treat them is a seperate issue from the legal issue of how we are obligated to treat them, and is largely a matter of opinion.