European BDS

[WildCat]

Well if you keep re-writing the law to make it so you might get there in the end: not yet though. I think they missed their chance.

What law had to be rewritten to hold unlawful combatants at Gitmo? The GC you cited was written in the 1940s.

 

[Fiona]

Why so it was!

 

[WildCat]

Why so it was!

So what law has to be rewritten to make the Gitmo detentions legal, since I gather by your saying "Well if you keep re-writing the law to make it so you might get there in the end: not yet though" you don't think they're legal now?

Oh well, I have to go out and shovel snow.

 

[ddt]

Funny, I seem to recall that discussion ending up rather differently. Maybe you'll be the first one to show the ICRC document declaring the detentions in Gitmo illegal? Maybe you'll be the first one to show a final court ruling that the detentions are illegal and ordering all of them released? Of course you won't, because you can't.

Here's the discussion I referred to. Judge for yourself.

I see you share drkitten's reading comprehension problems. There are currently 250 detainees at Gitmo.

Well, sorry if my info is a bit outdated. It took Bush also only five years to publish a list of detainees. And compare these two wiki pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees:

Approximately 750 suspects have been held at Guantánamo Bay. Approximately 250 have been released, or transferred to the custody of their native countries. Some of these were then quickly released, since there was no evidence of involvement in any crimes. The Bush administration continues to classify many of these released detainees as "illegal combatants". As of December 2008, around 50-60 detainees have been cleared for release, but have not actually been released due to difficulties in repatriating them.[8] The unrepatriated include ethnic Uighurs who were training to fight for independence from the Chinese government in Xinjiang province, and who are now wanted by the Chinese authorities.

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp:

As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[8] More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.
[...]
Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.

Of those 250, 60 have been cleared for release but there are problems finding a country to take them. The other 190 are either awaiting trial or have been found to be too much of a security risk to release. There was never a plan to charge or try everyone who was ever at Gitmo, nor is there any legal requirement to.

There never was a plan in the first place.

 

[BeAChooser]

What other real choice is there accept releasing them in the United States under very close supervision for a long time?

How about a Half-Way House next to the Obama White House for the next four years?

With Obama taking personal responsibility for any trouble they cause after release?

 

[ddt]

Funny, I established that I wished to discuss them, early on. Who are you again? It's a thing called "limiting the scope of a discussion." See post number four of this thread.

Sorry. Let's just say: the issue doesn't end with the 17 Uighurs.

Nope, can't get a conviction does not equal innocent.

No, but how in how many cases did the authorities establish nothing at all about the detainees, and in how many cases did they find some but insufficient incriminating evidence?

Why is that? Does it occur to you that this may account for why they were captured and held in the first place?

Or they may just reason "where's smoke there's fire", the smoke in this case being that they had been detained in Gitmo in the first place.

We Agree!

Yeah!

And then, who did any vetting of those rounded up? Indeed, a root cause issue rarely discussed.

I'll leave it to you if you want to discuss that further in this thread. AFAIK, those captured by Pakistan were not vetted by US personnel.

I think that EU is an incorrect determination, and I may have started that. The article only indicated "some European countries" and so we should leave it at that, Germany and Portugal being cited in print.

OK. It might be an interesting case for that "EU Foreign Minister" though.

*snort*

Sorry if I'm being dense, but does that mean you found it funny? It was at least meant as such.

FWIW, I wouldn't mind if my country took part in this, but there should be a quid pro quo. At least indeed the rapid resolution of the remaining cases: determine their status, and then try them or release them or detain them as POW, but none of this crap of retaining them as "unlawful combatant".

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat what is it you don't understand? NOBODY is saying they are POW's.

ddt sure seems to be saying that...

At least indeed the rapid resolution of the remaining cases: determine their status, and then try them or release them or detain them as POW, but none of this crap of retaining them as "unlawful combatant".

You can stamp your feet snort with indignation all you want, but it is clear that under IHL they are indeed unlawful combatants.

To recap:

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.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705

You can't simply wish that away ddt.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but does that mean you found it funny? It was at least meant as such.

Yes.

FWIW, I wouldn't mind if my country took part in this, but there should be a quid pro quo. At least indeed the rapid resolution of the remaining cases: determine their status, and then try them or release them or detain them as POW, but none of this crap of retaining them as "unlawful combatant".

I'd be very leary of taking them on. Risky business. I say send them home. There is a reason I say that, and it is this: this exposes those nations who allegedly will abuse them by default to a public accounting.

Or it might.

Also, might not. I note how short International Community memories are in selected cases. See gut failure over Iraq, May, 1991, as a test case.

DR

 

[Fiona]

The detention is illegal because they did not comply with the provisions of the fourth geneva convention. You can't wish that away either

 

[WildCat]

The detention is illegal because they did not comply with the provisions of the fourth geneva convention. You can't wish that away either

Which provisions haven't been complied with?

 

[Fiona]

See above

 

[WildCat]

See above

So you have no idea?

 

[DC]

How many have been proven guilty that are held in Gitmo?

 

[WildCat]

How many have been proven guilty that are held in Gitmo?

Only the ones suspected of war crimes are being charged. The rest are being held until they are no longer a threat or until the hostilities are over, whichever comes first.

 

[DC]

Only the ones suspected of war crimes are being charged. The rest are being held until they are no longer a threat or until the hostilities are over, whichever comes first.

War crimes like beeing UBL's driver?

So most are held without trials?

 

[WildCat]

War crimes like beeing UBL's driver?

Yep, that all the way up to planning 9/11.

So most are held without trials?

They are held according to International Humanitarian Law regarding captured unlawful combatants. Charges and trials are not a requirement.

 

[DC]

Yep, that all the way up to planning 9/11.


Most are held according to International Humanitarian Law regarding captured unlawful combatants. Charges and trials are not a requirement.

Only the USA, UK, Australia, Israel and Kanada have such a thing like unlawful combatants.

when it is so acording to International Humanitarian Law, how come that almost every single Human Rights organisation is protesting that camp?

how many have been spoken guilty exactly?

and how do you end up in Gitmo? must there be evidence or is an accusation from someone enough?

 

[Pardalis]

Kanada

What does Hinduism got to do with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada

Boy, you really need to check those typos, the K is nowhere near the C or the A on the keyboard.

 

[ddt]

I'd be very leary of taking them on. Risky business. I say send them home. There is a reason I say that, and it is this: this exposes those nations who allegedly will abuse them by default to a public accounting.

Risky business for the new host country (let's say, per the article: Germany) in that those Uighurs might pose a security risk? Or risky business in that it gives their country of origin - China - a free ride to not let return any unwanted person who steps outside their borders? Your explanation points at the latter, but you might also mean the former.

But as to the latter: that's already happening now with asylum seekers, so it's not something new. Asylum seekers whose application is rejected are sent back in coordination with their country of origin. Often the country of origin doesn't cooperate, in which case the ex-asylum seeker spends additionally months or even years in a repatriation centre waiting for his/her repatriation. At least, that's how things go in Holland. And IIRC, China is one of the countries noted for its non-cooperation.

These Gitmo cases may be higher profile than the average nobody-asylum seeker, but I wouldn't bet on the outcome being different. Especially not with an aspiring power as China.

So no, I wouldn't use them as guinea pigs to try to change the attitudes of their country of origin.

 

[gtc]

... 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.....)

You are suggesting that only bush apologists use the term BDS but you've decided that using the term BDS indicates that someone is a bush apologist.