Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[Ziggurat]

Why have one standard when you can have two!

Umm... we're not at war with Iraq. Iraq is on our side. The police who captured these guys and put them in jail were not acting on authority of the central government when they did so. Geneva conventions weren't the issue in that little scuffle in any way, shape or form. It was, in point of fact, analogous to undercover cops: nobody complains about them violating the Geneva conventions. And yet, following your line of argument, we should. Why don't we? Hmmm....

 

[andyandy]

Umm... we're not at war with Iraq. Iraq is on our side. The police who captured these guys and put them in jail were not acting on authority of the central government when they did so. Geneva conventions weren't the issue in that little scuffle in any way, shape or form. It was, in point of fact, analogous to undercover cops: nobody complains about them violating the Geneva conventions. And yet, following your line of argument, we should. Why don't we? Hmmm....

what about during the gulf war? Plenty of special forces in iraq then....and they weren't wearing uniforms....

 

[kalen]

Umm... we're not at war with Iraq. Iraq is on our side. The police who captured these guys and put them in jail were not acting on authority of the central government when they did so. Geneva conventions weren't the issue in that little scuffle in any way, shape or form. It was, in point of fact, analogous to undercover cops: nobody complains about them violating the Geneva conventions. And yet, following your line of argument, we should. Why don't we? Hmmm....

So there's a difference between coalition forces disguising themselves to blend in with the general population and the (yet to be convicted) terrorists doing the same? Actually, it's funny when you think about it, the (yet to be convicted) terrorists probably dressed like that their entire lives; haven't they even heard of the Geneva conventions?

ETA: Is it agreed that if Al-Queda caught these SAS guys, the Geneva conventions would not apply?

 

[Ziggurat]

what about during the gulf war? Plenty of special forces in iraq then....and they weren't wearing uniforms....

I'll assume you're kidding, because if you're serious, you need to present evidence to that effect, because that's the first time I've ever heard that accusation.

 

[Ziggurat]

So there's a difference between coalition forces disguising themselves to blend in with the general population and the (yet to be convicted) terrorists doing the same?

Yes. There's a difference between undercover cops and the criminals they chase, too. Don't have to invoke Geneva conventions to figure that one out, though.

ETA: Is it agreed that if Al-Queda caught these SAS guys, the Geneva conventions would not apply?

Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, so there's no reason to expect them to abide by it, and they never have in the past. Their very existence is set up precisely to defy such conventions: that's what terrorist organizations are. Looking to the Geneva conventions to protect our soldiers captured by terrorist organizations has never been anything more than a fevered delusion. Whatever your opinion of what we should be doing, it is a grave mistake to not recognize this fundamental aspect of our enemy.

 

[Elind]

I thought they were kept isolated...so how did they synchronise their deaths?

No, they are not all isolated. That would be cruel; but one wonders if they had lost their faith since suicide is supposed to be a no no for true Muslims, unless they kill someone else in the process. Maybe they figured they killed each other?

 

[Mycroft]

Rules that must be followed? Requirement for uniform?

These guys weren't dressed as tourists.

From the article:


Why have one standard when you can have two!

Do you know why these people were out of uniform?

Until you can answer that question, how can you assert there is a double standard?

 

[Mycroft]

Firing squads happened AFTER A TRIAL. Even enemy saboteurs and spies get a trial. Even the military hold courts martial before sentences are carried out. Sure, it could be a show trial like Stalin, or in camera like the UK, but it's a trial nonetheless. Every domestic spy caught by the Allies in WW2 did have a trial before being executed or gaoled.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Gitmo detainees were seen by a military tribunal, which constitutes a trial.

 

[Zbu]

The Rear Admiral's statementsa bout 'asymmetrical warfare' just go to show that he's a complete idiot and that the Right-Wingers are trying to make a pathetic case that caring about brown people who kill themselves is just a PR stunt by the Left-Wing in order to undermine the current Administration. Which goes to show that Fourth Generation warfare is alive and well and currently being used by the Administration against the whole of America instead of Al Qaeda.

 

[BPSCG]

The Rear Admiral's statementsa bout 'asymmetrical warfare' just go to show that he's a complete idiot and that the Right-Wingers are trying to make a pathetic case that caring about brown people who kill themselves is just a PR stunt by the Left-Wing in order to undermine the current Administration. Which goes to show that Fourth Generation warfare is alive and well and currently being used by the Administration against the whole of America instead of Al Qaeda.

You forgot to use the rant function. I fixed it for you. No need to thank me.

 

[kalen]

Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, so there's no reason to expect them to abide by it, and they never have in the past.

Exactly. So why is Wildcat (and a lot of other people, too) suggesting that their not wearing uniforms is illegal? What law are they breaking with respect to that issue?

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. So why is Wildcat (and a lot of other people, too) suggesting that their not wearing uniforms is illegal? What law are they breaking with respect to that issue?

I think the point Wildcat is trying to get at is that they are not protected by the Geneva conventions - the technicalities of why (them losing those protections because they violate the terms of the treaty vs. them never falling under the treaty to begin with) are, I suspect, secondary to what he's really interested in. But I'm only guessing here.

But their actions are illegal, even if the uniforms aren't part of why: they're violating the laws of the countries that they are operating in (for example, Iraq).

 

[rjh01]

Some people are suggesting that the prisoners are common criminals. That would mean they should have a fair trial. After three odd years it is a long time to wait. Military Justice would not apply.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some people are suggesting that the prisoners are common criminals. That would mean they should have a fair trial. After three odd years it is a long time to wait. Military Justice would not apply.

Sure, some people contend that. Some people contend that they are NOT common criminals, but instead are enemy combatants not covered by the Geneva conventions, which would mean that they should have fewer rights than POW's, not more. And POW's can be held indefinitely without charges - ergo, we should not expect or demand any such treatment for Guantanamo prisoners.

 

[Zep]

Australia's treatment of it's illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is an absolute disgrace. And to think John Howard was quite happy to demonise them to win an election.

...AND to farm their detention out on neighbouring countries, presumably with the carrot of "added aid" being dangled.

Shameful.

 

[Elind]

...AND to farm their detention out on neighbouring countries, presumably with the carrot of "added aid" being dangled.

Shameful.

Is that what you call Aussie rendition?
And those neighbors did what to them?

 

[Zep]

Sure, some people contend that. Some people contend that they are NOT common criminals, but instead are enemy combatants not covered by the Geneva conventions, which would mean that they should have fewer rights than POW's, not more. And POW's can be held indefinitely without charges - ergo, we should not expect or demand any such treatment for Guantanamo prisoners.

"Enemy" by definition only.

Then again, I still have a problem with the above definition. Let's allow that Al-Quaeda is a recognised military entity, despite it having no nationality. Enemies can either be combatants or non-combatants. The USA IS a signatory to the Geneva Convention, even if Al-Quaeda is not. So I would hope it does not think it can excuse itself entirely from its requirements on the grounds its enemies are not signatories.

Put all together: Combatant enemy are protected by the Geneva Convention. As POWs, they have certain rights, as do their captors have certain responsibilities towards them. Unlimited detention on serious military charges without trial is not one of these. Non-combatant enemy are civilians, and so subject to civil law, which does not usually entail unlimited detention without trial.

In short, such behaviour at Gitmo is inventing a legal loophole where there isn't room to invent one. It's why even the US military legal defence teams for these prisoners are resigning in protest at the shabby and trumped-up treatment of prisoners.

It's true.

 

[Zep]

Is that what you call Aussie rendition?
And those neighbors did what to them?

They allowed the Australian government to set up prison-camps on their island to house asylum-seekers. The idea was modeled after Gitmo in Cuba. Seeing as they are only small Pacific island nations, there was not a lot they could do to resist. The implied threat was that if these nations did not comply, existing Australian aid would be withdrawn.

Recently, the last of these asylum-seekers on one island-nation was admitted to Australia as a resident (they all were, as it turns out). That nation has now said they will accept no more, aid or no aid, and the camp is being disbanded. Good for them!

I have no problem with detaining illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers so they can be properly processed or returned. But not in what are effectively concentration camps, not foisted on other countries, and not for years on end.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then again, I still have a problem with the above definition. Let's allow that Al-Quaeda is a recognised military entity, despite it having no nationality. Enemies can either be combatants or non-combatants. The USA IS a signatory to the Geneva Convention, even if Al-Quaeda is not. So I would hope it does not think it can excuse itself entirely from its requirements on the grounds its enemies are not signatories.

Of course the US is excused from applying Geneva conventions to Al Qaeda. The Geneva convention is a treaty. It is, by its own declarations, ONLY binding for conflicts between parties to the treaty. By its own words, the treaty can not and does not apply.

It is a DIFFERENT argument if you want to claim that the principles of the treaty are worth abiding by even outside the context of the treaty. But that argument is one of what principles we should follow, and NOT one of what our legal obligations are.

Put all together: Combatant enemy are protected by the Geneva Convention.

Nope.

As POWs, they have certain rights, as do their captors have certain responsibilities towards them. Unlimited detention on serious military charges without trial is not one of these.

Wrong again, and doubly so. Not only do the Geneva conventions not apply, but even if they did, this requirement simply does not exist. The Geneva conventions allow for indefinite detentions of POW's without trial. In fact, that's the general procedure: POW's are not, as a rule, charged with anything, and they are, in fact, held indefinitely. You have invented a right for POW's which simply never existed.

In short, such behaviour at Gitmo is inventing a legal loophole where there isn't room to invent one.

Quite simply wrong, for the reasons stated above. You're wrong about the applicability and, more dramatically, the actual contents of the Geneva conventions.

 

[Kopji]

I have no doubt that the terrorists get a propaganda benefit from all the hysteria about Gitmo. But I question this conclusion, because quite frankly our side isn't going to talk about the value it really gets out of Gitmo. We're not going to reveal what intelligence we receive from these guys, how effective our efforts there are, etc. It's an asymmetrical situation, to be sure, but I don't think we on the outside really have all the information necessary to conclude that Gitmo is "of far more value to terrorists than us". I doubt it, though, for the very simple reason that I think the military would ask to close it (and almost certainly get their request granted) if they thought they weren't getting more benefit from it than it cost.

You make a good point, but there is a sense that what we know is always incomplete. We still need to decide how to act rightly. We cannot avoid making ethical or moral choices because we don't know everything there is to know. So it is valid for me to say "of far more value to terrorists than us" with the evidence at hand. Sure, when we say we 'know' it is always more or less tentative.

We have already learned that many generals and military leaders keep silent until retirement. They seem supportive of the US war strategy until they feel it is safe to freely speak their minds.

The evidence supports that it is far more likely everyone involved would just like Gitmo to go away but can't do it because of the political cost of looking like they made a big mistake. (The mistake transcends political parties).

It is hard to just let them go somewhere, they could indeed be quite dangerous by now if they were not before. If nothing else they know lots of the latest interrogation techniques.

Meanwhile they serve as an inspiration to terrorist recruiters, by martyrdom if not by the symbol of their suffering.