European BDS

[Tailgater]

Is it Bush Derangement Syndrome to point out that they now have a much stronger motive as well?

No, but it doesn't matter. They could have been killed, released, or imprisoned. Pick the one that at that time was the more humane for them and safer for everyone else. IMO, they should be released back into Afghanistan where they were picked up.

 

[drkitten]

Which "common legal principle"? Which fight against terrorism?

You love to be vague, don't you?

Re-read the opening post. Note the third quotation. It's even in boldface.

No, I don't like to be vague, but I do like quoting where relevant.

Reminds me of the truthers who never make an actual claim so they can't ever be shown wrong.

That's right, you do remind me of the truthers. They can't read for toffee, either.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To a rational person, none at all.

I suggest you ask WildCat and Darth for the opinion from the other side.

My opinion is that they ought to be sent home, to their home country, if the judge has said they are to be released.

DR

 

[drkitten]

There is no legal third alternative, whatever the US government might say.

Well, that certainly appears to be the EU's opinion, and it is probably this to which they refer in their "principles of international law," given the number of aides memoire that Bush has received and filed unread on the subject.

I do not expect Wildcat and others to accept this and I have the impression they are eager to move the conversation on to this ground because they are comfortable there:

Which is exactly why Wildcat is trying so hard to make the US legal situation the topic of discussion. It's unfortunate that he hasn't gotten that right, either. But it's largely irrelevant, because the EU is not bound in any sense by US executive orders.

But the question in the OP is about resettling those people in Europe, whatever the position taken on the legality of their detention.

I don't think so. I think the OP was suggesting that the EU were being irrational in asking for conditions before accepting refugees for which they were not responsible, and being further irrational in the conditions they were asking.

Again I ask, what is the problem here?

The danger that Obama might accept your line of reasoning, and by comparison make Bush look incompetent.

 

[Tailgater]

Again I ask, what is the problem here?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9179/

China's problem is now a US problem. These are terrorist/freedom fighters who got caught in the middle of another fight and fled to the wrong people and were turned over to a bureaucracy of unprecedented indecisiveness as to how to sort the flow of people trying to kill each other. Giving them citizenship might or might not be a good idea.

 

[drkitten]

My opinion is that they ought to be sent home, to their home country

Not an option. Their home country is China, where they will be persecuted. (This has been taken judicial notice of; I don't think this was even an issue at the trial, precisely because the persecution of Uighur's is so well-documented.)

Under international -- and US -- law, it is not allowed to repatriate them under those conditions.

What's plan B?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Bush Derangement Syndrome. A term used among some right-wing Bush apologists to attribute well-founded criticism of his policies to personal failings on the part of the critics, thereby allowing them to continue their unthinking support of his illegal policies no matter how badly conceived or performed.

You are incorrect. It is a term used to describe a behavior, typically the default, emotional, and petty complaint about Bush that is a knee jerk response.

You don't need to be a Bush apologist, or right wing, merely skeptical and cynical and an observer to public utterances o recognize it when you see it. It began with the 2000 election and has not dimmed much.

Likewise, you are seeing plenty of ODS: Obama Derangement Syndrome, (which I tried to get the jump on in terms of neologism crafting), which is Obama opponents going over the top in their deranged foaming at the mouth over Obama. Do I have to be a deranged left wing apologist to recognize that, kitten?

No.

You might oughta get a grip, doctor.

Am I guilty of some hyperbole is classifying this leak as BDS? Maybe, maybe not. IMO, it is a manifestation of that behavior.

DR

 

[drkitten]

No, but it doesn't matter. They could have been killed, released, or imprisoned. Pick the one that at that time was the more humane for them and safer for everyone else. IMO, they should be released back into Afghanistan where they were picked up.

What if Afghanistan refuses to accept them? (And I think they were picked up in Pakistan anyway.)

 

[drkitten]

You are incorrect.

... and my statement is proven by example. (You can also prove it lexicographically; who, other than a Bush apologist, uses the term. It's certainly not in use in either mainstream media or left-wing press.....)

 

[WildCat]

Well I have re-read some of the stuff I looked at before about guantanamo and it seems clear that these people are all being held illegally. They have not been accepted as POW's nor as civilian prisoners.There is no legal third alternative, whatever the US government might say.

It's not just the US government claiming this, the ICRC also says the same thing:

What law applies to persons detained in the fight against terrorism?


States have the obligation and right to defend their citizens against terrorist attacks. This may include the arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorist crimes. However, this must always be done according to a clearly defined national and/or international legal framework Persons detained in relation to an international armed conflict involving two or more states as part of the fight against terrorism – the case with Afghanistan until the establishment of the new government in June 2002 - are protected by IHL applicable to international armed conflicts.

Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status (POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that international armed conflict. POWs cannot be tried for mere participation in hostilities, but may be tried for any war crimes they may have committed. In this case they may be held until any sentence imposed has been served. If the POW status of a prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent tribunal should be established to rule on the issue.

Civilians detained for security reasons must be accorded the protections provided for in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Combatants who do not fulfil the requisite criteria for POW status (who, for example, do not carry arms openly) or civilians who have taken a direct part in hostilities in an international armed conflict (so-called "unprivileged" or "unlawful" belligerents) are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention provided they are enemy nationals.

Contrary to POWs such persons may, however, be tried under the domestic law of the detaining state for taking up arms, as well as for any criminal acts they may have committed. They may be imprisoned until any sentence imposed has been served.

And also:

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status.

Fiona, do you now accept that there is indeed a "legal 3rd alternative"?

 

[Fiona]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9179/

China's problem is now a US problem.

It is the nature of conflict that it produces refugees and those refugees become the problem of other states: sad but inevitable, I think

These are terrorist/freedom fighters who got caught in the middle of another fight and fled to the wrong people and were turned over to a bureaucracy of unprecedented indecisiveness as to how to sort the flow of people trying to kill each other. Giving them citizenship might or might not be a good idea.

However it came about it seems to me that they are now refugees and the US obligation to them is clear. It really doesn't matter if it is a good idea or not

 

[drkitten]

It's not just the US government claiming this, the ICRC also says the same thing:

Yes.

Well, no.

In fact, not at all.

The ICRC authorizes -- this is in your own boldface -- "[Unlawful combatants] may be imprisoned until any sentence imposed has been served."

How many of the Gitmo detainees have an outstanding sentence imposed upon them?
How many of them even have criminal charges pending against them?

How many of them "pose a serious security threat" six years afterwards?

Fiona, do you now accept that there is indeed a "legal 3rd alternative"?

I hope not, because your own citations say there isn't.

 

[WildCat]

Well, that certainly appears to be the EU's opinion, and it is probably this to which they refer in their "principles of international law," given the number of aides memoire that Bush has received and filed unread on the subject.




Which is exactly why Wildcat is trying so hard to make the US legal situation the topic of discussion. It's unfortunate that he hasn't gotten that right, either. But it's largely irrelevant, because the EU is not bound in any sense by US executive orders.




I don't think so. I think the OP was suggesting that the EU were being irrational in asking for conditions before accepting refugees for which they were not responsible, and being further irrational in the conditions they were asking.



The danger that Obama might accept your line of reasoning, and by comparison make Bush look incompetent.

Unfortunately for you and Fiona, the EU is bound by International Humanitarian Law. See my above post for details.

So what are these "common legal priciples" you keep mentioning? It certainly isn't IHL.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not an option. Their home country is China, where they will be persecuted. (This has been taken judicial notice of; I don't think this was even an issue at the trial, precisely because the persecution of Uighur's is so well-documented.)

Under international -- and US -- law, it is not allowed to repatriate them under those conditions.

What's plan B?

You have just pointed out the problem: either the law is a ass, which I find a likely case (refugees, are they?) or we have a UNSC member who you can't trust to take care of its people. But international law must be respected, even though the quid pro quo isn't there.

Their home country is China, where they will be persecuted.

Funny, but I must ask: why do you reject China's right to deal as they wish with terrorists who train to fight them? Are they not a member of the UN? Are they not a sovereign nation? Are they not allowed to participate in the international counter to terrorist activity, to include on their own soil?

Politics, again, and rather patronizing politics, directed at the Chinese. I am so impressed by people who argue from principle: it does not take long to trip over the clown shoes, does it?

Thank you for playing. But again, we risk a derail.

DR

 

[Tailgater]

What if Afghanistan refuses to accept them? (And I think they were picked up in Pakistan anyway.)

They were picked up there fleeing from a camp in Afganistan to escape bombings from the US, where they were being trained by the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which is responsible for terrorist acts in China. They admitted to joining the camp and having weapons training. They just never had a chance to use that training. Of course it might have been against the Chinese, so I guess you could argue that dead Chinese would have been more acceptable in letting them go. What do you say, hmm? Lets just let them go here. I say Chinatown with a sign around their necks.

 

[Fiona]

It's not just the US government claiming this, the ICRC also says the same thing:


And also:


Fiona, do you now accept that there is indeed a "legal 3rd alternative"?

No of course not. Your quotes directly contradict your assertion

 

[Darth Rotor]

... and my statement is proven by example. (You can also prove it lexicographically; who, other than a Bush apologist, uses the term. It's certainly not in use in either mainstream media or left-wing press.....)

Since I am neither a Bush apologist, nor an Obama apologist, your argument fails.

Care to try again?

DR

 

[drkitten]

Unfortunately for you and Fiona, the EU is bound by International Humanitarian Law.

Yes, and they consider Bush to be in violation of IHL, among other things.

So what are these "common legal priciples" you keep mentioning?

International Humanitarian Law.

It certainly isn't IHL.

So tell that to the EU's lawyers. Given that they have reading skills and you demonstrably don't, I know who I would believe in a pinch.

 

[WildCat]

Yes.

Well, no.

In fact, not at all.

The ICRC authorizes -- this is in your own boldface -- "[Unlawful combatants] may be imprisoned until any sentence imposed has been served."

Or until the end of hostilities, or until they are determined to no longer be a threat (and the vast majority of them have been determined so, and repatriated).

How many of the Gitmo detainees have an outstanding sentence imposed upon them?
How many of them even have criminal charges pending against them?

They don't have to have a criminal case against them. All a criminal case does is allow them to be held beyond the time hostilities are over. They don't gain rights by being an unlawful combatant.

How many of them "pose a serious security threat" six years afterwards?

190 apparently.

I hope not, because your own citations say there isn't.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

 

[drkitten]

Since I am neither a Bush apologist

Au contraire.

I will grant you this. You are the most rational Bush apologist on this forum.

But a Bush apologist you are and remain. I've read too many of your posts.