"Bad" people go to Gitmo?

[corplinx]

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

Why does the US need a legal reason? These are people of strategic value and we have found a nice legal loophole to keep them as military detainees. Why invent new laws? Their detention is a military issue and not a federal policing issue so it really doesn't fall within the legal world due to their enemy combatant status.

Try putting on your critical thinking hat. We've already sifted through the detainees and released ones with no strategic value. How long then do you think the other detainees will be held? (*clue, it may have to do with their strategic value and the captures of certain high ranking terrorists)

 

[CFLarsen]

Why does the US need a legal reason?

Because a nation not built on law is...a rogue nation?

These are people of strategic value

How so?

and we have found a nice legal loophole to keep them as military detainees. Why invent new laws?

"Illegal combatants".

Their detention is a military issue and not a federal policing issue so it really doesn't fall within the legal world due to their enemy combatant status.

Why have rules of war, or any kind of international law, rules or conventions, if one nation can just kidnap and detain indefinitely other nations' citizens?

Try putting on your critical thinking hat. We've already sifted through the detainees and released ones with no strategic value. How long then do you think the other detainees will be held? (*clue, it may have to do with their strategic value and the captures of certain high ranking terrorists)

How long has it taken so far? Why would anyone look at the US as the defender of freedom, if this happens?

 

[Mycroft]

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

You're kidding, right? The GC has a definition written into it. It's been discussed at length in these forums. At this point, if you're still unclear about the issue, it can only be because you want to be unclear.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're kidding, right? The GC has a definition written into it. It's been discussed at length in these forums. At this point, if you're still unclear about the issue, it can only be because you want to be unclear.

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

 

[Ryokan]

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

Haven't you got it yet? They're 'illegal combatants'!

Why am I thinking of a circle?

 

[CFLarsen]

Haven't you got it yet? They're 'illegal combatants'!

Why am I thinking of a circle?

Who are not "illegal combatants"?

 

[Ryokan]

Who are not "illegal combatants"?

That must be the 'legal combatants', an army of lawyers

 

[Cylinder]

Appeal to pity - your pitiful state does not apply.

What are the legal reasons for the US to keep foreign citizens incarcerated indefinitely...

The period of detention is not indefinite. It lasts until the end of the conflict or until criminal proceedings are initiated against each of them individually - whichever comes first.

...without a trial...

"Trial" is an over broad term. If you mean criminal trial, that has never been the standard. To the contrary, some detainees are prevented from being charged criminally by treaty. This does not affect their detention. Some detainees are required to placed in front of a tribunal by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Conventions, though this is a simple finding of the facts surrounding the circumstance of their detention and not necessarily an adversarial judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court of the United States has also granted detainees the right to habeas corpus petitions in federal court to challenge their detention.

...and without declaring them prisoners of war?

Prisoner of War in the sense of international law is a special subset of combatant detainees that meet very specific requirements - not all qualify.

If you want to know the legal basis for the US to detain combatants in the first place, I direct your attention to the following:


Authorization for the Use of Military Force

Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism

 

[Dr Adequate]

"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.

The Red Cross would be the Hawking radiation, obviously.

 

[CFLarsen]

Appeal to pity - your pitiful state does not apply.

For someone who has only made 19 posts here in less than a month, you seem awfully quick to dish out verdicts on old posters.

You could be highly knowledgeable of this board, which would indicate that you are a banned poster.

Or, of course, is merely a condescending know-it-all. Whatever applies.

The period of detention is not indefinite. It lasts until the end of the conflict or until criminal proceedings are initiated against each of them individually - whichever comes first.

When is that?

"Trial" is an over broad term. If you mean criminal trial, that has never been the standard. To the contrary, some detainees are prevented from being charged criminally by treaty.

What treaty are the prisoners of Gitmo covered by?

This does not their detention. Some detainees are required to placed in front of a tribunal by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Conventions, though this is a simple finding of the facts surrounding the circumstance of their detention and not necessarily an adversarial judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court of the United States has also granted detainees the right to habeas corpus petitions in federal court to challenge their detention.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. "This does not their detention"??

Prisoner of War in the sense of international law is a special subset of combatant detainees that meet very specific requirements - not all qualify.

But the Gitmo prisoners have not been declared POWs.

If you want to know the legal basis for the US to detain combatants in the first place, I direct your attention to the following:

Authorization for the Use of Military Force

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States

I have yet to see one single Gitmo prisoner be charged of being responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism

Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.

(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant

times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

How is that determined?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The period of detention is not indefinite. It lasts until the end of the conflict or until criminal proceedings are initiated against each of them individually - whichever comes first.

I've got some great news which is going to come as a surprise to you.

The Afghan war is over.

You won!

It's not too late to go out and celebrate --- but I wouldn't explain why, if anyone asks. They'll look at you strangely.

 

[Cylinder]

For someone who has only made 19 posts here in less than a month, you seem awfully quick to dish out verdicts on old posters.

I was attacking the logical fallacy in your argument. Whether or not the same criticism applies to your personal life is an issue left for you to decide.

You could be highly knowledgeable of this board, which would indicate that you are a banned poster.

I could also be the Queen of Sheba. I don't understand that point.

Or, of course, is merely a condescending know-it-all. Whatever applies.

Great. Let's move on to actual argument.

When is that?

Since the executive order on which the detentions are based cites the authority granted in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force passed by Congress in 2001, the executive order would expired when the AUMF itself is expired under the War Powers Act of 1973.

What treaty are the prisoners of Gitmo covered by?

Laws of Armed Conflict and the Third Geneva Conventions among others. That's not to say that they are granted POW protections which is a more narrow set of protections under that convention.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. "This does not their detention"??

I edited that. It should read "This does not affect their detention." Some detainees are protected from criminal charges but are still lawfully detained.

But the Gitmo prisoners have not been declared POWs.

Right. Some do not qualify for these specific protections.

I have yet to see one single Gitmo prisoner be charged of being responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Criminally charged is not the standard. In fact, some are prevented from being charged with a crime. The actual persons covered by the executive order are those who:

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor,
that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or

(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;

The AUMF also covers al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.

How is that determined?

Combatant detainee status is determined by Article 5 tribunals if POW status is not granted and doubt as to status arises per Article 5; Convention III. Habeas corpus petitions are also granted by US federal courts to make the determine if due process guarantees have been met. DOJ also has authority to designate members of organizations party to the conflict and to authorize detention. This would be analogous to detaining an officer of the German army who was a quartermaster in a rear area during WWII. Though not a direct combatant, they still are a material part of the organization party to the conflict.

If you want Camp Delta closed, you should petition al Qaeda and Taliban forces to accept a formal surrender, turn over weapons and hand over any indicted persons they may be harboring. Then you can petition Congress to expire the AUMF.

 

[CFLarsen]

Since the executive order on which the detentions are based cites the authority granted in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force passed by Congress in 2001, the executive order would expired when the AUMF itself is expired under the War Powers Act of 1973.

So, there is no legal reason to hold people at Gitmo?

Laws of Armed Conflict and the Third Geneva Conventions among others. That's not to say that they are granted POW protections which is a more narrow set of protections under that convention.

The Third Geneva Convention deals with POWs, which these prisoners aren't (or so it is argued).

I edited that. It should read "This does not affect their detention." Some detainees are protected from criminal charges but are still lawfully detained.

How so? What have they done, specifically?

Right. Some do not qualify for these specific protections.

AFAIK, none have been declared POWs.

Criminally charged is not the standard. In fact, some are prevented from being charged with a crime. The actual persons covered by the executive order are those who:

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

How is that determined? Do they have a membership card?

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor,

In which case, we should see a trial real soon (it's been years, after all). Where is that trial?

that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy;

By that definition, anyone who speculates that the dollar will be weak in the future has it as their aim to cause injury to the United States economy.

The AUMF also covers al Qaida and Taliban detainees.

But how do we know that they are al Qaida and Taliban? Do they have a membership card? How can we tell an Afghani from a Taliban?

Combatant detainee status is determined by Article 5 tribunals if POW status is not granted and doubt as to status arises per Article 5; Convention III. Habeas corpus petitions are also granted by US federal courts to make the determine if due process guarantees have been met. DOJ also has authority to designate members of organizations party to the conflict and to authorize detention. This would be analogous to detaining an officer of the German army who was a quartermaster in a rear area during WWII. Though not a direct combatant, they still are a material part of the organization party to the conflict.

This is about combatant detainee status. Not on whether or not they are members of al Qaida.

If you want Camp Delta closed, you should petition al Qaeda and Taliban forces to accept a formal surrender, turn over weapons and hand over any indicted persons they may be harboring. Then you can petition Congress to expire the AUMF.

I want those responsible for 9/11 caught and duly prosecuted. I lived in New York City on that day, and I saw with my own eyes what damage was done. But I want the right people sentenced. I don't want to see the world turn into a shooting range for US military, with people being summarily rounded up and put into camps indefinitely, without anyone knowing if they are guilty or not.

I think this boils down to one question: How does one decide whether a person is a member of al Qaida or not?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

For someone who has only made 19 posts here in less than a month, you seem awfully quick to dish out verdicts on old posters.

You could be highly knowledgeable of this board, which would indicate that you are a banned poster.

Or, of course, is merely a condescending know-it-all. Whatever applies.

And here, class, is a classic example of "poisoning the well" by insinuation.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I think this boils down to one question: How does one decide whether a person is a member of al Qaida or not?

I thought you had already cleared this up: Obviously, they are wearing turbans and arab dress -- a clear uniform for Al Qaeda.

 

[CFLarsen]

And here, class, is a classic example of "poisoning the well" by insinuation.

Absolutely not. I am merely wondering how Cylinder can pass judgment on posters here so quickly.

 

[CFLarsen]

I thought you had already cleared this up: Obviously, they are wearing turbans and arab dress -- a clear uniform for Al Qaeda.

How would you point out an AQ member?

 

[LW]

Absolutely not. I am merely wondering how Cylinder can pass judgment on posters here so quickly.

Never heard of lurking before posting?

 

[Dr Adequate]

How would you point out an AQ member?

I should like to mention that although I apreciate CFL's deep and wide knowledge of skepticism, and although I share his general pinko liberal Euro attitudes re politics, I do realise that he is nonetheless an idiot and should be mocked as one.

Will you look at what he just did?

Arrgh!

 

[Mycroft]

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

You're changing the topic. What is the legal definition of a POW as provided by the GC, and do the prisoners at Gitmo conform to that definition?