"Bad" people go to Gitmo?

[Ziggurat]

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

If we were at war with, say, China, and we took prisoners of war, we could (and likely would) hold said prisoners indefinitely and without charges. They have certain protections as POW's due to a treaty which both China and the US are parties to, but those protections do not extend to either time limits for detention or the requirement for trials with formal charges. Let me repeat: we are legally permitted to detain POW's indefinitely and without charge.

In the case of the Taliban and Al Quaeda, as has already been pointed out, POW status does not apply. But that does not give them ADDITIONAL protections unavailable to POW's covered by the Geneva convention. So why on earth would we be required to put them on trial or release them by any given date as long as the conflict continues (and it most assuredly does)? Your position is simply incoherent.

 

[Cleon]

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

They seem to qualify under section 1:

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.

If they're not "armed forces," they qualify as militias. And if not militias, definitely volunteer corps.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

If they're not "armed forces," they qualify as militias. And if not militias, definitely volunteer corps.

Yes, but to qulaify under section 1 they would have to comprise a volunteer corp or milita that is part of a nations armed forces. That would imply uniforms, military leadership, etc.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, but to qulaify under section 1 they would have to comprise a volunteer corp or milita that is part of a nations armed forces. That would imply uniforms, military leadership, etc.

"Imply," nothing. Does the convention specify that? If it's a war, it's a war, and there are combatants. If there's a war, with combatants, who are prisoners, then they are prisoners of war.

Every attempt to sidestep that is a rather obvious attempt at word-parsing to get out of an uncomfortable fact--the US has broken the Geneva conventions.

 

[Manny]

"Imply," nothing. Does the convention specify that? If it's a war, it's a war, and there are combatants. If there's a war, with combatants, who are prisoners, then they are prisoners of war.

Every attempt to sidestep that is a rather obvious attempt at word-parsing to get out of an uncomfortable fact--the US has broken the Geneva conventions.

Those persons of Afghani "citizenship" (remember, the taliban controlled Afghanistan but they were not a legitimate government to almost the entire world) who were captured during routine combat operations while fighting as part of a recognized force were held in Afghanistan and turned over to the Afghan government when it was formed. The persons taken to Guantanamo were largely a) foreign fighters and b) Afghani al Qaeda members. Thousands of people were captured during the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, of whom only a few hundred were taken to Guantanamo. By and large, those people fared much, much better than those who were not.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

"Imply," nothing. Does the convention specify that? If it's a war, it's a war, and there are combatants. If there's a war, with combatants, who are prisoners, then they are prisoners of war.

Every attempt to sidestep that is a rather obvious attempt at word-parsing to get out of an uncomfortable fact--the US has broken the Geneva conventions.

Well, just go by what that section says. I have bolded the relevant part.

"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."

How many of these guys were attached to units of the regular Afghan army? If any of them were, you could make that those particular prisoners do indeed have Geneva Convention protections due to them. If they aren't attached to a regular military unit, then they fall under section 2, which they don't qualify for either because of the reasons pointed out earlier.

The Gitmo detainees fall into a legal grey area. I won't argue the morality of how they are being treated, but, like it or not, they are not protected by the Geneva conventions.

 

[Grammatron]

They seem to qualify under section 1:



If they're not "armed forces," they qualify as militias. And if not militias, definitely volunteer corps.

As I'm posting this Ny beat me to it. Read his post.

Damn you Ny!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

As I'm posting this Ny beat me to it. Read his post.

Damn you Ny!

I feel oddly like I have had this argument before, elsewhere with different people.........

 

[Bjorn]

The persons taken to Guantanamo were largely a) foreign fighters and b) Afghani al Qaeda members.

How do we know?

 

[Manny]

How do we know?

Huh? Does anybody seriously doubt that thousands of people were captured during the liberation of Afghanistan? Or that only a few hundred of them were sent to Guantanamo? Or that numerically foreigners outnumbered Afghani nationals? I didn't even think that was a point of contention. Heck the some anti-war sites are claiming that thousands of prisoners died in Afghan custody, let alone those who didn't.

 

[Batman Jr.]

In accordance with the Third Geneva Convention, any combatant who has fallen into the hands of the enemy, regardless of whether they meet the criteria inevitably to receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions or not, must first be brought before a tribunal capable of sound judgment to decide what rights they are entitled to, and it is only pursuant to the completion of such an assessment that any appropriate limiting of rights shall be carried out. In other words, everyone is covered under the Geneva Conventions until they are found not to be allowed their protections by the aforementioned tribunal. No tribunal hearings have been provided for any of the detainees and hence, we see clear negligence of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions taking place.

 

[Grammatron]

In accordance with the Third Geneva Convention, any combatant who has fallen into the hands of the enemy, regardless of whether they meet the criteria inevitably to receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions or not, must first be brought before a tribunal capable of sound judgment to decide what rights they are entitled to, and it is only pursuant to the completion of such an assessment that any appropriate limiting of rights shall be carried out. In other words, everyone is covered under the Geneva Conventions until they are found not to be allowed their protections by the aforementioned tribunal. No tribunal hearings have been provided for any of the detainees and hence, we see clear negligence of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions taking place.

I guess you are reffering to:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Which is not what you said.

However I don't see who it's reffering to in regards to the arrising doubt. I'm going to assume it's military and if they decided it's not then I don't see how any kind of tribunal is required.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

In accordance with the Third Geneva Convention, any combatant who has fallen into the hands of the enemy, regardless of whether they meet the criteria inevitably to receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions or not, must first be brought before a tribunal capable of sound judgment to decide what rights they are entitled to, and it is only pursuant to the completion of such an assessment that any appropriate limiting of rights shall be carried out. In other words, everyone is covered under the Geneva Conventions until they are found not to be allowed their protections by the aforementioned tribunal. No tribunal hearings have been provided for any of the detainees and hence, we see clear negligence of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions taking place.

I assume you refer to article 5.

Art. 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

And this is where the murkiness sets in. Under article 52 of Convention 1, A charge that these men are due protection by the conventions would have to be brought by a party to the combat, in this case Al Qaeda, and then the US and Al Qaeda would have to agree on a neutral thrid party to form said tribunal. They have made no effort (that I can find, anyway) to do so. I have my doubts as to whether they even could. In effect, the extra-legal nature of Al Qaeda has dropped these guys into a legal limbo.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

This time Grammy beat me.

Damn you Grammy.

 

[Manny]

Before any person is sent to Guantanamo, a military screening team, with the assistance of military lawyers, makes a determination that transfer is justified. The recommendations of that team then must be approved by a general officer in the area and again by DOD officials in Washington. Approximately 10,000 persons have undergone this screening process and less than 10% of them were transferred to Guantanamo. Even after their arrival at Guantanamo the reviews continue. Over 100 of the detainees have subsequently been released. (cite for all that -- of course the number of persons released is now far higher)

The fact is that no group of persons detained in wartime has ever had the level of review extended to Guantanamo detainees. To be clear, that is not my preference -- I believe they should have received drum trials on site and released or executed. It would have been completely and totally legal and it would have prevented the propaganda victories the terrorists are winning right now. Instead, the US government has gone far, far beyond its obligations under any international treaty or any reasonable moral argument in its treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo and gets nothing but grief for it. I hope the intelligence they've received has been worth that grief for them.

There may be people who are currently at Guantanamo who don't belong there. But it's not for lack of trying by the military -- bringing someone there is far more bothersome than not doing so and not worth the hassle unless the military thinks there's an awfully good reason to do so. By and large, the Vice President's statement in the first post is exactly correct. These are bad people.

 

[Manny]

Damn you Grammy.

Oh, damn you both!

Well, I'm going with the "it took time to find my cool cite" excuse. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[Grammatron]

Oh, damn you both!

Well, I'm going with the "it took time to find my cool cite" excuse. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Well your posts drove the point home a bit better.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The fact is that no group of persons detained in wartime has ever had the level of review extended to Guantanamo detainees.

Everyone you mention is in the executive branch or the military which has the president as commander in chief. This means that all the decision are ultimately made or approved of by one person - the president. This generally leads to abuse of power. In Bush's case, I have no idea if this has occurred because he has effectively hidden all information from anyone who does not report to him. In an obviously ridiculous scenario, Bush claimed the right to detain John Kerry as an enemy combatant with Kerry having no recourse. This power, whether used or not, is not proper in a liberal democracy.

Here is my suggestion for the law the congress needs to pass:
1) Within two weeks of campture, the evidence for holding the prisoner must be presented to a judge.
2) The person can be held for 6 months before the evidence is presented to another judge.
3) This rolling 6 month period can be extended to two years before a decision to try or release need to made.

Lots of power for Bush but with checks and balance.

CBL

 

[kalen]

I have a hard time trying to figure out this business at Guantanamo and all the double-speak in the world hasn't helped.

The "coalition" is supposedly bringing democracy to Middle East because it is the greatest form of government yet known to mankind. Indeed, the US can kick anyone's ass and that should be proof enough, right? This form of government has at its basis not only a system whereby people can vote for their leaders, but also features things like presumption of innocence and fair and open trials.

The fact that Guantanamo even exists should be an affront to every American who thinks that countries in the Middle East should have democracies and democratic principles. The kind of justice served up at Guantanamo and other US detention facilities around the world is exactly the thing that Americans tend to get in a tizzy about if another country were to do it. Imagine the calls for an invasion if an American was locked up (rightly or wrongly) under similar circumstances (ie. they are considered "bad" and have no justice forthcoming) in another country.

Or maybe democracy isn't all that it's made out to be: Maybe saying "bad people" counts as engaging the American electorate on an intellectual level.

 

[Batman Jr.]

However I don't see who it's reffering to in regards to the arrising doubt. I'm going to assume it's military and if they decided it's not then I don't see how any kind of tribunal is required.

Where does it constrain recognized doubt to the military? Does it say "any doubt" or "any doubt harbored by military personnel"?

Furthermore, there is demonstrable uncertainty in the military whether they want to admit it or not in the allotting of combatant's rights in that the government has stated that detainees come from both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Despite the fact that Taliban members fall under the category described in 4a1 and are therefore not subject to the four requirements of 4a2, POW status has indiscriminately been denied to all on the basis of infractions of the four requirements in 4a2. A tribunal is required to sift through those who would be subject to the requirements of 4a1 as opposed to 4a2 and vice versa.