"Bad" people go to Gitmo?

[Cylinder]

The basic aim of the conventions was to "civilise" warfare -- with the aim of protecting civilians. Terrorists/un-uniformed fighters -- who hide among civilian populations, store munitions in civilian facilities, and launch attacks from amongst civilians -- do not fit within the Articles.[/B]

Exactly on-point. The requirement for uniformed fighters is in place to protect the surrounding civilian populations from reprisals and inadvertent targeting by the opposing force.

 

[Cylinder]

They don't need to. Read it again:



The first category is the one I quoted. The second category is the one you quoted. All they need to do is belong to the first category.

They do. Ergo, they are covered by the Geneva Convention.

Your call.

To be a member of a regular armed force as reference in Article 4, you are required to wear uniforms.

 

[CFLarsen]

To be a member of a regular armed force as reference in Article 4, you are required to wear uniforms.

But you don't need to be a member of a regular armed force. All you need to do is belong to a milita or a volunteer corps.

The demand for uniforms is part of the other category.

Do you acknowledge that people only need to belong to one of the categories? Yes or no.

Do you acknowledge that the first category (the one I quoted) does not speak of uniforms? Yes or no.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

You are parsing the language too fine:

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.

Such militias or volunteer corps, in order to qualify for protections, have some additional responsibilities:

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.

In order to be "a part of such armed forces," the fighter would have to be following the orders of a signatory country. To my knowledge "Fight[ing] for Muslims" doesn't really fit well, nor does fighting under Al - Q.

Further, I have seen nothing from the news reports to indicate that this gentleman (who I understand has (1) now asserted that he will now go to Chechnya to "fight for Muslims" there, and (2) declared Danish public officials as legitimate targets for terrorists) meets any of the qualifications under the language of the Articles.



edited to add:
[quote from your source -- immediately after the part you quoted]

 

[LW]

But you don't need to be a member of a regular armed force. All you need to do is belong to a milita or a volunteer corps.

Claus, I know that answering questions is not what you like to do, but try these:

1. What are the relevant High Contracting Parties in this case?

2. What is the definition of "armed forces of a Party"?

 

[CFLarsen]

In order to be "a part of such armed forces," the fighter would have to be following the orders of a signatory country. To my knowledge "Fight[ing] for Muslims" doesn't really fit well, nor does fighting under Al - Q.

Nope. The Geneva Convention does not merely apply to countries but to Contracting Parties. If they meant "country" only, don't you think they would have written it?

Further, I have seen nothing from the news reports to indicate that this gentleman (who I understand has (1) now asserted that he will now go to Chechnya to "fight for Muslims" there, and (2) declared Danish public officials as legitimate targets for terrorists) meets any of the qualifications under the language of the Articles.

You are not up to date. Slimane has recanted his wish to go to Chechnya and he has retracted his declaration that Danish public officials are legitimate targets for terrorists. At any rate, those statements came after he was released, so the point is moot.

That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

I assume that this is where the "uniform" thing comes in.

A fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance does not necessarily mean that people wear combat fatigues and stripes. It could also easily mean a turban, or an Arab dress.

You sure don't see many Al Qaida fighters in snappy fatigues, do you?

Did the VietCong wear uniforms at all times? Were VietCongs taken as POWs?

 

[CFLarsen]

1. What are the relevant High Contracting Parties in this case?

The United States of America, the Taliban government and the Al Qaida.

2. What is the definition of "armed forces of a Party"?

The part of a Party that is armed. Duh.

Here are a few questions for you:

Do you consider the Taliban government and the Al Qaida "High Contracting Parties"?

If not, what are they, exactly?

 

[Grammatron]

A fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance does not necessarily mean that people wear combat fatigues and stripes. It could also easily mean a turban, or an Arab dress.

Are you f'ing serious?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

A fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance does not necessarily mean that people wear combat fatigues and stripes. It could also easily mean a turban, or an Arab dress.

Only if the turban was somehow distinctive from the turbans or other headgear worn by non-combatants. Likewise the Arab dress.

Did the VietCong wear uniforms at all times? Were VietCongs taken as POWs?

Irrelevant. If they were, there is nothing saying that you can not treat captured enemies better than you are obligated to. Nor is there anything saying that if a nation chooses to do so in one war, they are obligated to do so in the next.

 

[LW]

The United States of America, the Taliban government and the Al Qaida.

Could you please tell when exactly did Taliban or Al Qaida become signatories of the Convention?

The part of a Party that is armed. Duh.

So, for example, George John Dasch, Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, Richard Quirin, Edward John Kerling, Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt were entitled protection as POWs since they were armed and in German service?

Here are a few questions for you:

Do you consider the Taliban government and the Al Qaida "High Contracting Parties"?

If not, what are they, exactly?

I don't believe that either is. You may prove me wrong by showing when they signed the Conventions.

Of those two Taliban might be, if they some time announced that they considered valid the treaties that previous governments of Afghanistan had made.

 

[CFLarsen]

Only if the turban was somehow distinctive from the turbans or other headgear worn by non-combatants. Likewise the Arab dress.

Would a turban-wearing guy with an AK-47 qualify?

Irrelevant. If they were, there is nothing saying that you can not treat captured enemies better than you are obligated to. Nor is there anything saying that if a nation chooses to do so in one war, they are obligated to do so in the next.

A nation does not get to decide how it will interpret the Geneva Convention, depending on what war it is currently engaged in.

If the VCs did not wear a uniform, and they were considered POWs, then the US has got a problem explaining why the Gitmo detainees are not considered POWs, if the uniform is the key.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Nope. The Geneva Convention does not merely apply to countries but to Contracting Parties. If they meant "country" only, don't you think they would have written it?

Ed forbid I ever use shorthand. Ok, I see above that you've alleged that Al Queda is a signatory to the Geneva conventions. That is surprising -- I'll admit that is news to me.

Cite?

You are not up to date. Slimane has recanted his wish to go to Chechnya and he has retracted his declaration that Danish public officials are legitimate targets for terrorists. At any rate, those statements came after he was released, so the point is moot.

He said both on national TV, and then "recanted" as part of the criminal investigation -- just perhaps to avoid said prosecution? How did you decide which time he "really" meant what he said?

I assume that this is where the "uniform" thing comes in.

A fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance does not necessarily mean that people wear combat fatigues and stripes. It could also easily mean a turban, or an Arab dress.

You sure don't see many Al Qaida fighters in snappy fatigues, do you?

Are you serious? Arab dress in a country full of civilians wearing the same dress counts as "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"? Have we gone through the mirror?

And as to the other points snipped out without comment: What about a recognizable commander/command structure? what about not hiding their arms? What about the biggee: "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"?

I submit that hiding munitions in hospitals and mosques or placing themselves and their weapons in civilian populations is not acting in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

[CFLarsen]

Could you please tell when exactly did Taliban or Al Qaida become signatories of the Convention?

You don't get to circumvent the Geneva Convention, just because you haven't signed it.

So, for example, George John Dasch, Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, Richard Quirin, Edward John Kerling, Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt were entitled protection as POWs since they were armed and in German service?

No. The Geneva Convention was adopted on 12 August 1949, after that incident.

Nice try, though.

I don't believe that either is. You may prove me wrong by showing when they signed the Conventions.

Because they haven't signed the Convention? (And please, please understand that there is one Geneva Convention. Not several.)

Of those two Taliban might be, if they some time announced that they considered valid the treaties that previous governments of Afghanistan had made.

So, you are saying that the Taliban and the Al Qaida can treat their prisoners any way they want to, without fearing any repercussions from the International Community?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ed forbid I ever use shorthand. Ok, I see above that you've alleged that Al Queda is a signatory to the Geneva conventions. That is surprising -- I'll admit that is news to me.

No, that's not what I am saying.

He said both on national TV, and then "recanted" as part of the criminal investigation -- just perhaps to avoid said prosecution? How did you decide which time he "really" meant what he said?

That is beside the point. If we are to consider speculation evidence, then everyone will end up in Gitmo.

Are you serious? Arab dress in a country full of civilians wearing the same dress counts as "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"? Have we gone through the mirror?

How about wearing an Arab dress, shooting a gun at US troops?

And as to the other points snipped out without comment: What about a recognizable commander/command structure? what about not hiding their arms? What about the biggee: "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"?

They were not snipped out without comment. All parts must be fulfilled, so if just one fails, the rest is irrelevant.

I submit that hiding munitions in hospitals and mosques or placing themselves and their weapons in civilian populations is not acting in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Neither is bombing civilians. Now what?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Would a turban-wearing guy with an AK-47 qualify?

Well, he would have to meet all four conditions, so again unless that turban was somehow distinctive from those worn by non-combatants (and assuming he met the other two conditions) then no.

Originally posted by CFLarsen A nation does not get to decide how it will interpret the Geneva Convention, depending on what war it is currently engaged in.[/B]

It isn't a matter of how the conventions are interpreted, it is a matter of giving the same level of treatment someone would get IF they were covered, even though they aren't. No interpretaion required.

Originally posted by CFLarsen If the VCs did not wear a uniform, and they were considered POWs, then the US has got a problem explaining why the Gitmo detainees are not considered POWs, if the uniform is the key. [/B]

Well, the first thing you have to do, then is establish that VC were considered POWS and treated as such by the US. So far as I can find captured VC were turned over to the South Vietnamese (remember, technically we were there in an "advisory" capacity) and the South Vietnamese treated them horribly, much worse than anything alleged to have happened at Guantanamo.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Because they haven't signed the Convention? (And please, please understand that there is one Geneva Convention. Not several.)

Yes and no. ther is only one that covers POWs, but ther is one that covers general conduct of warfare, one that covers refugees and civilians in war zones, and one that covers stranded sailors (why that one is seperate from the POW one, I have no clue)

 

[LW]

You don't get to circumvent the Geneva Convention, just because you haven't signed it.

Do you know what a "contracting party" means?

No. The Geneva Convention was adopted on 12 August 1949, after that incident.

Nice try, though.

So, you don't even know that the original Geneva Convention on POWs was signed on 27 July 1929?

Because they haven't signed the Convention?

If they have not signed it, they are not High Contracting Parties.

(And please, please understand that there is one Geneva Convention. Not several.)

There are four.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

No, that's not what I am saying.

There is a reciprocity element to the application of the conventions. Al Queda were not signatories and cannot demand the protections of the Conventions. The US has announced that it will follow the humanitarian portion of those guides, but is not bound by all of the provisions that would be applicable to a uniformed soldier on the other side.

How about wearing an Arab dress, shooting a gun at US troops?

Disingenuous at best. If he's shooting guns at US troops, then why were you demanding evidence against your example earlier -- shooting guns at US troops isn't enough evidence? And under your standard, no one that isn't actually pointing a gun at troops can be considered a combatant -- which is why mixing with civilians and -not- carrying weapons or wearing a uniform openly on a regular basis loses you protected status.

They were not snipped out without comment. All parts must be fulfilled, so if just one fails, the rest is irrelevant.

Claus -- if the un-uniformed fighters (read terrorists) fail to meet *all* of those conditions, then they fail to fall within the protections outlined. They arguably fail all of them; they clearly fail more than one.

Neither is bombing civilians. Now what? [/B]

Now maybe you can get real. But if wearing a turban and arab dress in an arab country works as a uniform in your estimation, then I see little hope in having a substantive discussion on any other point. This last point appears to simply throw out an irrelevancy in to begin another trip down a well-worn rabbit trail.

 

[Renfield]

Camp Delta is far, far from a legal black hole. Detainees now have access to federal courts, Article 5 tribunals and unimpeded ICRC inspections.

"Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo"

You mean that ICRC? The one that said this:

"For thousands of those detainees, including many at Guantanamo Bay, visits by ICRC delegates constitute their only contact with the outside world."

The term "black hole" might not be absolutely accurate if taken literally, but then metaphors often aren't perfect.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's clear that we won't reach agreement on whether or not the Gitmo prisoners are POWs or not.

What are the legal reasons for the US to keep foreign citizens incarcerated indefinitely, without a trial, and without declaring them prisoners of war?