Posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:53 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 06/29/2006 7:41:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
There are several contradictions.
a) These people are not given the status of a POW - who should be set free when the fighting (= the war) is over.
They are called "illegal combatants", a term which is not known to the international treaties (= "international law") signed and ratified by the United States of America.
b) The United States of America are not at war in the sense of the "international law", there is no military action going on against a state, but against individuals. But when a state uses such methods against individuals, we call that law enforcement. In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan on request of these governments, therefore on a legal basis. This actually is a pretty good example that the current "international law" is not capable of providing a practical solution to the challenges of worldwide terrorism, especially when a state actively supports terrorist activities.
c) The Nuremburg court was an illegal court, there have been no laws until then that have required governments to respect the human rights. The Nazis were convicted for crimes that couldn´t be prosecuted by these courts. However, they committed crimes often enough even according to the German laws then. One could argue that all laws made between 1933 and 1945 were unconstitutional, because main parts of the German constitution of 1919 were ignored during the Nazi era. Morale was on the allied side, no doubt, but not the law. The answers found were several international declarations and treaties. Since that we may very well legally prosecute governments for violating the human rights.
d) Gitmo is about transparency and about credibility. You don´t want to reproach me or my government with being against the GWOT. But we are against that camp. I KNOW that the inmates wouldn´t live if it was WW2, and I KNOW that it´s a dilemma. But I´m sure you can find a solution. We have the crime "membership in a terrorist organization" - why can´t you convict them because of that? Give them 20 or 30 years in a fair trial and it´ll be ok.
Eventually, the Bush Administration has asked my government to take a few Gitmo prisoners. I don´t know what we should do with them. It´s reported in the German media. http://focus.msn.de/politik/ausland/guantanamo_nid_31236.html
Have a nice weekend!
Why should the question of whether to torture someone or not rest on whether they (a) are American or not, (b) are a soldier or not or (c) committed their crimes on American soil?
Surely Americans are better than all this jesuitical casuistry. We win not by stooping to our enemies' standards, but by shining the light of our own standards across the earth.
You haven't answered my question. Am I wrong when I say an investigation by some human rights watch group turned up nothing when they searched for what they called "secret prisons"?
--These people are given the term "unlawful" combatants because they fall out of all parameters as defined by international and national law of what a legal combatant is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
The Geneva Convention DEFINES what a lawful combatant is in it’s article 4.
“Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.”
Now read this Excerpt from Article 3:
“each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
What part of the article are you having a hard time understanding? I can translate it for you.
They do not meet the criteria (Period). You and I both would be class III POW if captured by an enemy. It is the “terrorist” locked up at GITMO who kills without trial, who tortures for real, who takes hostages, mutilates, defines and kills even based on religion and breaks near EVERY aspect of article 3. It is the “terrorist” at GITMO who lacks all basic aspects that define a soldier.
They should thus not be afforded the same status as a POW. This is not relative. Either they meet the requirement's or they do not.
(Some indicators that should be a clue)
1. People like Al Zarqawi are not fighting under the flag of Jordan, Afghanistan or anyone else. Even though Iran and Syria largely back these groups, they will deny any connections. A soldier falls under a national flag.
2. When my brigade went into Karbala we could have easily killed everything alive there. In fact it would have made the job a lot easier than sorting out good guys from bad guys and clearing individual buildings. We did not do this. We lost lives ultimately to minimize collateral damage. In fact, Muqtar Al Sadr whom we were fighting there in 2004 used the holly shrines as protection knowing that we would not damage these places. If we take sniper fire from a town we could call in artillery and guaranteed destroy the threat. This does not agree with the concept of “proportionality”. Terrorists have no “proportionality”. The concept of collateral damage is in reverse. Their modus operandi seeks to MAXIMIZE this. Example: London, Madrid, Moscow theater, 911 and US embassy attacks. They “target” civilians who they can attack with impunity (An unarmed, un-expecting civilian is a low threat target) to attack and they MAXIMIZE the collateral damage. They operate in complete reverse to a military.
3. Soldiers wear uniforms and are identifiable on the battlefield. They carry identification cards, dog tags and wear a discernable uniform. Soldiers have rules and fall under laws as with CPT Maynulet, a peer of mine who broke them. He was dishonorably discharged, demoted, has a federal criminal record as a felon; for more or less euthanizing someone who was dying anyway.
--War has not been declared since WWII, yet many people have died in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Cuba, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Angola, Philippines and elsewhere in battles that were fought.
There is a need for international rules governing maritime boundaries, patents and lots of other aspects. But I don’t need to wait for the UN or anyone else to figure out the meaning of what a “pirate” is. TODAY ships are still at threat from attack off the coast of Somalia and in the busiest water way on Earth in Asia where 40+ ships were attacked last year alone.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1510658.htm
“If you see a snake, just kill it - don't appoint a committee on snakes.” Ross Perot.
Action needed to be taken after 911. Waiting was no option. So the systems and processes were put in place to deal with it. As time goes on the details will get hammered out. Had the US not done what it did there would be no process in place to deal with the flood of detainees which the GWOT has created.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/18/pirates.somalia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4636588.stm So, I wonder what special treatment we should give pirates? Maybe they too are “soldiers”? Should we just not do anything if there is no rule covering the detainment of nationless pirates?
--GITMO prisoners have access to the red Crescent/Cross. Congressmen and women come and go. You have the media that has entered the facilities several times and camps out in front. There have been international visitors. What more to transparency do you want!??? It’s no secret that there is GITMO or what is going on there.
Action was needed. Bush provided the authority for the military to take needed action and be able to process and detain those prisoners taken on the battlefield in the GWOT. There is no lack of transparency. Why these people were taken into custody is clear. What our purpose is, how they are held is all defined and has been chewed through in the media. From what they eat, to how they are dressed, and even how they sit, or what their holding cell looks like, is all publicly disclosed and debated. There is no lack of “transparency” as to what is going on there. However, there is a lack of “certainty” as to what the future is for these prisoners. How will they be tried, where will they be kept, etc. is largely up in the air in the long run.
Let’s use real world examples as to why you want a closed military tribunal – Zacarias Moussaoui. Giving him an open forum to spew more of his vehement hate filled message, allowing him to martyr himself on Primetime news isn’t really smart is it? Why don’t you just hand him the microphone, place a TV camera in front of him and let him advertise Jihad. The government will not want these guys to have a POW status and will want closed trials.
If I were a defense attorney I too would try my hardest to get them defined as a POW. If they are POW then a whole other can of worms is opened. As POW one could argue reasonably that they should be set free once the war is over. Since the Afghanistan war is over should we then let some of these animals that make RAF terrorists look like “Milchknaben” free? If they are POW that would mean we can’t interrogate them. We would not even be able to hand them over to third parties and and and.
• “Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information”
A common criminal is interrogated, but if these “terrorists” are defined as POW we can’t even do that!
Read on:
• “All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession “
• “Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area.”
• “The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.”
• “Canteens shall be installed in all camps, where prisoners of war may procure foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use. The tariff shall never be in excess of local market prices. The profits made by camp canteens shall be used for the benefit of the prisoners; a special fund shall be created for this purpose. The prisoners' representative shall have the right to collaborate in the management of the canteen and of this fund.
• Das ist der Hammer! – “Article 38
While respecting the individual preferences of every prisoner, the Detaining Power shall encourage the practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners, and shall take the measures necessary to ensure the exercise thereof by providing them with adequate premises and necessary equipment. “
• But it get better yet! –“Article 60
The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power, of the following amounts:
o Category I: Prisoners ranking below sergeant: eight Swiss francs.
o Category II: Sergeants and other non-commissioned officers, or prisoners of equivalent rank: twelve Swiss francs.
o Category III: Warrant officers and commissioned officers below the rank of major or prisoners of equivalent rank: fifty Swiss francs.
o Category IV: Majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels or prisoners of equivalent rank: sixty Swiss francs.
o Category V: General officers or prisoners of equivalent rank: seventy-five Swiss francs. “
• Here we go! “and to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123, on the other hand, a card similar, if possible, to the model annexed to the present Convention, informing his relatives of his capture, address and state of health. The said cards shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible and may not be delayed in any manner.
• Article 71 Prisoners of war shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards.”
• “Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive by post or by any other means individual parcels or collective shipments containing, in particular, foodstuffs, clothing, medical supplies and articles of a religious, educational or recreational character which may meet their needs, including books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities.”
Those morons who argue we should treat them as POW’s don’t understand that a POW is no convict. A POW is treated better than a common criminal because he is no criminal! I can see it now – we pay those sitting in GITMO an allowance every month and set up a recreation facility for them. Boy o boy, cut off some heads, beat on women and blow up civilians and then get a monthly stipend at club GITMO.
these people are being held somwehere. do you know where? I don't. so if we don't know, someone must be keeping it a secret.
if human rights watch is unable to turn up anything - that's good, that means the "secret" part of this plan is working as it's supposed to.
I don't know anything, you are right. I don't know if they alive, dead, or where they are, or how often they are moved. But again, its supposed to be a secret - so the plan is working out.
Now, what happens of the SCOTUS issues a habeas order for KSM or Zubayda, perhaps as part of a deposition for some defendant in a Gitmo trials that have just mandated - what do we do?
this is just one example of where this could go, and why this decision by the SCOTUS, is bad news.
There is no chance any of these animals get a trial in a "civilian" court with a jury of everyday American citizens. If the Congress does not give the president the authority do do as he sees fit then the prisoners sit there and rot. If the savage loving left makes to much fuss and seems to be making headway in having them tried as normal citizens are then they cam always be returned to where we found them, right back on the battlefield. But before we do that we implant a subcutaneous transponder so we can dispose of them a week or 2 later.
even a military tribunal, will/can have rules of evidence that allow the accused (and his counsel) access to the evidence/testimony against him. you want the ACLU deposing KSM? neither does the CIA.
What it says to me is that SCOTUS just declared them as "protected". Art. 68 says we can execute "protected" persons ...."which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began."
So, would Saddam have executed these scum? LOL
And when the Republicans introduce legislation just before the elections setting up a way to legally try the terrorists? What Dem is going to vote against that right before an election? And the SCOTUS seems to have declared the terrorists protected, and Article 68 of the convention seems to imply we can execute terrorists when we go about it the right way...
I'm don't see how screaming that will do them any good when the legislation is on the floor to abide by the ruling...?
Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this phrase?
Is it not the 2006 midterms and 2010 midterms?
"Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this phrase?
Is it not the 2006 midterms and 2010 midterms?"
You are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.