David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

[gumboot]

is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone? I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

Yes, it would be a crime. Unless, of course, you were a member of the Australian Armed Forces and Australia was supporting New Zealand. However, under the International Laws of Armed Conflict, were you a private Australian citizen partaking in an armed conflict in New Zealand between New Zealand and the United States, you would be classified as a "mercenary" and not a protected person. As a mercenary, you would be protected by the Geneva Conventions until such time as a tribunal determined your status. If this tribunal determined that you were a mercenary you would be an unlawful combatant, and a criminal. As such, you would not have Prisoner of War status, would not be repatriated, and, depending on the laws of the detaining power, would likely face execution.

Thus tis the law.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

With respect, what utter bullshyte. If it's a war, as highlighted in your response, he's a POW. So treat him as such. POWs can indeed be held until cessation of hostilities, but they also have rights not being accorded to Hicks.

I think, on the matter of these alleged Al Qaeda detainees, it is very important to make a clear distinction between whether they can be detained, for how long, under what premise, and how they are treated WHILE detained.

For example, some might argue that these people can be detained indefinately, whilst others might argue there must be a swift trial and then either release or sentencing. Certainly some may also argue they should all just be let go.

However I think most sane people would agree that until such time as these individuals are released (if they ever are) they certainly shouldn't, for example, be raped and fed dog excrement instead of food.

-Gumboot

 

[Zep]

Yes, it would be a crime. Unless, of course, you were a member of the Australian Armed Forces and Australia was supporting New Zealand. However, under the International Laws of Armed Conflict, were you a private Australian citizen partaking in an armed conflict in New Zealand between New Zealand and the United States, you would be classified as a "mercenary" and not a protected person. As a mercenary, you would be protected by the Geneva Conventions until such time as a tribunal determined your status. If this tribunal determined that you were a mercenary you would be an unlawful combatant, and a criminal. As such, you would not have Prisoner of War status, would not be repatriated, and, depending on the laws of the detaining power, would likely face execution.

Thus tis the law.

-Gumboot

Facts are good to have - thanks.

I've not seen Hicks charged with being a mercenary, and being protected by the GC accordingly. So the evidence for that case seems not to exist either.

And the case for "unlawful combatant" seems to have evaporated too.

What's left? The murder of Rasputin?

 

[Zep]

I think, on the matter of these alleged Al Qaeda detainees, it is very important to make a clear distinction between whether they can be detained, for how long, under what premise, and how they are treated WHILE detained.

For example, some might argue that these people can be detained indefinately, whilst others might argue there must be a swift trial and then either release or sentencing. Certainly some may also argue they should all just be let go.

However I think most sane people would agree that until such time as these individuals are released (if they ever are) they certainly shouldn't, for example, be raped and fed dog excrement instead of food.

-Gumboot

Exactly. If he is to be detained indefinitely, what's the point (let alone the right) of the dastardly detaining conditions? Even high security common criminals are not treated this bad.

 

[gumboot]

I've not seen Hicks charged with being a mercenary, and being protected by the GC accordingly. So the evidence for that case seems not to exist either.

And the case for "unlawful combatant" seems to have evaporated too.

No, no... a mercenary IS an unlawful combatant and ISN'T protected by the Geneva Conventions.

But here's the real problem... under international law he can't be classified as a mercenary (unlawful combatant) until he has been the subject of a military tribunal. And the US Supreme Court ruled that the USA aren't ALLOWED to put him through a military tribunal. So they're pretty much [rule8]ed.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Exactly. If he is to be detained indefinitely, what's the point (let alone the right) of the dastardly detaining conditions? Even high security common criminals are not treated this bad.

I agree...

Either:

1) He's a mercenary, in violation of international law, as determined by a military tribunal (okay, so the Supreme Court won't let them do this, but let's pretend for a moment...) and should be executed accordingly (or whatever the US punishment is for being a mercenary)

OR

2) He's an enemy combatant, and thus a POW, and should be detained until such time as the "War of Terror" ends, at which point, once it is determined he nolonger follows the ideology of Radical Islam (ha!) he should immediately be repatriated to Australia.

OR

3) He's just a random Australian and should be sent home.

Until such time as one of the above happens, the United States Government is obliged to provide him all of the rights and protections afforded to protected persons under the Geneva Conventions.

-Gumboot

 

[Crossbow]

Can you specify which decades in US history enemies captured in a war were released prior to war's end, or given legal review? What would FDR have done, for example?

Yes, I can do that!

But first, may come as news to you, but FDR died before World War II ended, therefore it is problematic to compare his polices (which involved a mutually declared state of war between various nations) and Bush (which does not involve a declared state of war).

And perhaps this is news to you as well, but there have already been scores of people who have been released from Guantamo. Therefore, the case you are making about holding the prisoners until all hostilities has already been thoroughly invalidated.

But if you are looking for examples showing how different things are now, then I refer you to the famous case that involved soon after the USA entered the war (when FDR was still alive) where several German saboteurs were caught, then tried, then convicted, and then executed. This was a difficult thing to do, but never the less, the legal system did work the way it was supposed to, as opposed to now, where the Bush Administration has tried so hard to stifle the legal system.

As for other cases of releasing prisoners prior to the end of a war, well there a number of spy exchanges done during the Cold War long before the Cold War was actually over. Other nations have long done similar things while actual hostilities were going on (i.e., the Israelis and Palestinians).

 

[WildCat]

Yes, I can do that!

But first, may come as news to you, but FDR died before World War II ended, therefore it is problematic to compare his polices (which involved a mutually declared state of war between various nations) and Bush (which does not involve a declared state of war).

al Qaeda did declare war on the US, and the US responded in kind w/ al Qaeda post-9/11. And I'm well aware that FDR died during the war.

And perhaps this is news to you as well, but there have already been scores of people who have been released from Guantamo. Therefore, the case you are making about holding the prisoners until all hostilities has already been thoroughly invalidated.

When did I ever claim we had to keep them until the end of hostilities? Of course you can release them prior, if you're satisfied they're no longer a threat, or you do a prisoner swap, or any other reason. This hurts your argument more than mine, because it refutes the claim seemingly held by others that we're holding people there for no real reason, and it's just because Bush is evil and gets off on that sort of thing.

But if you are looking for examples showing how different things are now, then I refer you to the famous case that involved soon after the USA entered the war (when FDR was still alive) where several German saboteurs were caught, then tried, then convicted, and then executed. This was a difficult thing to do, but never the less, the legal system did work the way it was supposed to, as opposed to now, where the Bush Administration has tried so hard to stifle the legal system.

Those spies were dropped off on the American mainland by a U-Boat. Spies/saboteurs caught on the battlefield didn't fare so well - there is video of the Battle of the Bulge showing German spies being summarily executed on the spot - no court martial, trial, lawyers, etc. Just an order from an officer. The Gitmo prisoners are lucky by comparison.

 

[WildCat]

Exactly. If he is to be detained indefinitely, what's the point (let alone the right) of the dastardly detaining conditions? Even high security common criminals are not treated this bad.

You're not familiar w/ Supermax prisons, are you?

 

[WildCat]

But they were perfectly able to find and capture David Hicks in the same area? Strange, no?

Are you claiming Hicks had the same protection afforded bin Ladin by the locals?

With respect, what utter bullshyte. If it's a war, as highlighted in your response, he's a POW. So treat him as such. POWs can indeed be held until cessation of hostilities, but they also have rights not being accorded to Hicks.

Careful how you use that term - POW is a term defined by the GC for protected persons. Persons captured by the enemy but not fitting the criteria for a protected person are not afforded POW status. They are prisoners captured in a war, but not technically POW's.

 

[gumboot]

As for other cases of releasing prisoners prior to the end of a war, well there a number of spy exchanges done during the Cold War long before the Cold War was actually over.

Er... I'm not sure that's such a fantastic example to use. To begin with, spies are not PoWs and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Secondly, although we call the "Cold War" a war, it's not an Armed Conflict, and therefore not relevant in terms of discussing the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

-Gumboot

 

[Mycroft]

You are mising the point Mycroft.

I'll say it once again.

Nobody deserves to be raped.

That's it.

Well I agree with you, but unless you're claiming David Hicks was raped then your statement is out of place in this discussion.

Are you claiming Hicks was raped?

If so, what is the evidence to support your claim?

 

[Mycroft]

Rubbish and you know it.......you have earned ignore status again.

Now I'm confused.

Were you not in Vietnam?


Edited to add:

Or is this fake offense your excuse not to address the issue that you know damned well that enemy combatants in any conflict get killed or imprisoned without regard to the legality of their "resistance."

 

[Mycroft]

But they were perfectly able to find and capture David Hicks in the same area? Strange, no?

IIRC, Hicks was captured in an urban area while riding a bus.

 

[Mycroft]

And perhaps this is news to you as well, but there have already been scores of people who have been released from Guantamo. Therefore, the case you are making about holding the prisoners until all hostilities has already been thoroughly invalidated.

Excuse me, but how does that invalidate anything? That prisoners may be held until the end of hostilities doesn't mean that they must be. I am not aware of any rule that forbids making the decision on a case by case basis.

 

[fishbob]

I only remember saying that those who see themselves as holy soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions should be treated as soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions.

Not obeying the Geneva Conventions would be just plain criminal.

 

[Crossbow]

al Qaeda did declare war on the US, and the US responded in kind w/ al Qaeda post-9/11. And I'm well aware that FDR died during the war.

Excuse me again for pointing out the obvious, but the USA has not declared war on al Qaeda. The USA can only declare war on other nations, and al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation, therefore al Qaeda cannot be treated as a nation.

And I am most pleased to learn that you are aware that FDR died before World War II ended, so I suggest that you stop talking about why FDR was not tried for war crimes during World War II.

When did I ever claim we had to keep them until the end of hostilities? Of course you can release them prior, if you're satisfied they're no longer a threat, or you do a prisoner swap, or any other reason. This hurts your argument more than mine, because it refutes the claim seemingly held by others that we're holding people there for no real reason, and it's just because Bush is evil and gets off on that sort of thing.

Well, it sure sounded like you were claiming that all detainees should be held until the end of hostilities when you say things like:

OK, I read it. Hicks admits training w/ al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, Hicks was captured and can be held for the duration of the war - and doesn't ever have to be charged w/ anything. And this is the way it's always been done in warfare, and is not illegal in the US. Does Australia typically appoint enemies captured in a war lawyers and trry them? I doubt it. If so, could you provide examples?

As for the previous release of detainees, again I have to say that hurts your argument not mine.

If the USA was actually at war with al Qaeda (as you like to claim),
Then all of the detainees would be held until the war with al Qaeda has been won or lost.
Instead, Bush has used his own authority to hold and release prisoners as he sees fit to do so, therefore if your claim is accurate, then Bush would be guilty of treason by letting prisoners go before the war had been concluded, and Bush would be guilty of war crimes by holding the detainees as 'Enemy Combatants' instead of 'Prisoners of War'.

Those spies were dropped off on the American mainland by a U-Boat. Spies/saboteurs caught on the battlefield didn't fare so well - there is video of the Battle of the Bulge showing German spies being summarily executed on the spot - no court martial, trial, lawyers, etc. Just an order from an officer. The Gitmo prisoners are lucky by comparison.

Invalid comparision!

True enough, those spies were dropped off by U-Boat, however that does not change the facts of the case that once they were in the legal system, they were treated with legal due process. As opposed to the other case you cite in the 'Battle of the Bulge' when they were still in the middle of a dire fight and the prisoners in question had not yet been legally processed. In the case of current detainees, they have been kept off the battlefield for months (even years) and pose no immediate danger, yet the Bush Administration has continually refused to provide these people with the legal due process that the USA would call for if any of its military personnel were in a similar situation.

 

[Crossbow]

Er... I'm not sure that's such a fantastic example to use. To begin with, spies are not PoWs and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Secondly, although we call the "Cold War" a war, it's not an Armed Conflict, and therefore not relevant in terms of discussing the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

-Gumboot

Quite true!

The USA/USSR spy exchanges were more like a courtesy than the execution of a detailed international agreement. However, if you note I also did include a bit about how other nations have exchanged prisoners while actual engaged in actual hostilities (which is what I was being asked about).

 

[Crossbow]

Excuse me, but how does that invalidate anything? That prisoners may be held until the end of hostilities doesn't mean that they must be. I am not aware of any rule that forbids making the decision on a case by case basis.

Since you have more than adequately shown that you are unable to understand when two different issues are being discussed in the same thread, I doubt that I could explain it to you in any terms that you could comprehend.

 

[WildCat]

Excuse me again for pointing out the obvious, but the USA has not declared war on al Qaeda. The USA can only declare war on other nations, and al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation, therefore al Qaeda cannot be treated as a nation.

Nonsense. Let me refresh your memory:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Bold emphasis mine.

And I am most pleased to learn that you are aware that FDR died before World War II ended, so I suggest that you stop talking about why FDR was not tried for war crimes during World War II.

Now you're left with having to lie about my position. I never once claimed that FDR should have been tried for war crimes, nor any other US President for that matter.

Well, it sure sounded like you were claiming that all detainees should be held until the end of hostilities when you say things like:

Apparently the public education system has failed you to the point of being unable to distinguish between "can be" (my words) and "must be" (what you apparently think "can be" means).

As for the previous release of detainees, again I have to say that hurts your argument not mine.

Not at all, because the basis for your claim is a strawman argument I never made.

If the USA was actually at war with al Qaeda (as you like to claim),

Which I proved above we are.

Then all of the detainees would be held until the war with al Qaeda has been won or lost.

Replace "would" with "could" and you've accurately portrayed my position. Your repeated attempts at lying about what I said are noted for all to see.

Instead, Bush has used his own authority to hold and release prisoners as he sees fit to do so, therefore if your claim is accurate, then Bush would be guilty of treason by letting prisoners go before the war had been concluded, and Bush would be guilty of war crimes by holding the detainees as 'Enemy Combatants' instead of 'Prisoners of War'.

Wow, you take your lie and run with it to this extent... I guess this means you know you've lost the argument and lies are your only recourse?

Invalid comparision!

True enough, those spies were dropped off by U-Boat, however that does not change the facts of the case that once they were in the legal system, they were treated with legal due process. As opposed to the other case you cite in the 'Battle of the Bulge' when they were still in the middle of a dire fight and the prisoners in question had not yet been legally processed. In the case of current detainees, they have been kept off the battlefield for months (even years) and pose no immediate danger, yet the Bush Administration has continually refused to provide these people with the legal due process that the USA would call for if any of its military personnel were in a similar situation.

Doesn't matter. The spies captured on the battlefield were also no longer a threat. Nothing prevented them from being processed like the thousands of other Germans captured, except for the whims of the officers in charge.

Are you going to keep on resorting to lying about my position Crossbow? Or do you have actual facts to bring to the discussion?