NationStates Jolt Archive

After World War Two began the widespread trials of Nazis from the highest politicans to the lowest lieutenants. Those being tried from the military were often accused of breaking the Geneva Convention which was quite true. As was shown by the film The Great Escape the Nazis often executed POWs who had surrendered. For this crime, many Nazi officers were put to death - whether or not that is right is another discussion for another time.

But today in America, the rules of the international law are blatantly defied by the monstrosity that is Guantanmo Bay. Here Bush has sunk to new levels of depravitiy and by that measure taken the entire USA with him. He has invented a new status of war criminal to fit his unscrupulous ends. The men in Guantanmo Bay are treated like animals, forced to crawl on all fours like dogs in their orange jumpsuits. They are tortured by sensory deprivation and other more conventional means in order to beat out confessions. In doing this America has pushed itself to the level of the lowest dictatorship. These men are denied a trial, they are even denied lawyers. Instead they suffer voicelessly for crimes that have not even been proven. There is no hope for escape, no hope for an end. The US has denied them not only international law but its own laws for in the Constitution it states that no man may be imprisoned without a trial. The prisoners of Guantanmo have not been proven guilty nor have they been proven innocent but still they suffer. All of this, Bush says, in the name of necessity. As Pitt the Younger once said:
Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants: the creed of slaves.
And so the Land of the Free has lost its freedom to the call of necessity. How long will it be for George Bush decides that all those critising his government are aiding and abetting terrorists and therefore should be locked up in the name of necessity? What harm would a trial do? If these men are guilty of terrorism then so be it: then lock them away and throw away the key. And if they are not guilty then surely the FBI could keep track of these men with sure and simple ease. Oh yes that could cost more than to keep them in their cells but when since has human liberty been measured in pounds and pence?

But what of the charges levelled at these prisoners? Terrorism, says the White House but many were probably serving the Taliban. Was the Taliban itself a terrorist organisation? It may have condoned terrorist camps and terrorist action but it was still a foreign government and those who served it believed they were only doing their duty. They are not guilty of terrorism: they are guilty of fighting for the wrong side which is no crime.

Many of the prisoners are not even from Arabic nations. What of those possessing British or French passports? Surely its for Britain to try them under British laws. Despite the 'special' relationship between these two nations, America cannot return the support Britain gave. Britain asks for the return of its citizens to face British justice. It asks that international law and international treaties be honoured by the USA. But each request is met by the same blank stare of the Bush administration. While British soldiers bleed on the deserts of Iraq in an American war, the British government is still denied the most basic of requests. In Britain, the people want their fellow citizens to face their laws and their customs - the laws of liberty and the customs of justice. British citizens are guarnteed a trial under English law - America would have break these promises and render them hollow.

For violating international law, Nazi officers were shot. For violating international law, the Americans are said to be the champions of liberty. Holding POWs without trial is contary to the laws of liberty. America has placed its liberty on the alter of necessity.

They are prisoners of war, since when do they get lawyers?

no, no, no, its concentration camp of justice

They are prisoners of war, since when do they get lawyers?
since the us supreme court said so. and since they are pows

I'm sad to say that I have to agree with British Glory.

Prisoners being held in Guantanemo bay are being held in contravention of all law save that of ignorance and anger over acts carried out on september 11th. Acts which in which there is no proof of them having any complicity.

The UK has had I beleive, up to 7 POW's from guantanemo bay re-patriated to Britain (they were British Citizens) to face trial. There are however, still British citizens languishing in an american run limbo. There is little to no hope of a fair trial.

It is perhaps quite possible that those being held in guantanemo bay are traitors to the crown, but this is a matter that should be addressed by the representatives of it. The current system of trial proposed by the US government is that of a US Military tribunal where defence counsel MUST be that of a US citizen - the defendants are not entitled to appoint their own lawyers. Additionally, the judges in such trials would all be senior US Military officers.

The entire situation screams of a mockery of the justice for which the united states is supposed to stand for. Regardless of the atrocities commited against any nation or group or person, the last thing that should be sacrificed is impartiality and fairness, for without these, justice can never be acheived.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1830000/images/_1834201_dotbiz-bbc300.jpg

luckily the us supreme court said cases can be brought to federal courts, so the kangaroo courts wont be able to dow hatever they want for too much longer (a few years still sadly)

Holding POWs without trial is contary to the laws of liberty.
And you have some proof to back up this incredible statement?

Until this is on the News, no one will even think of caring. Think about Abu Ghraib. Were there any public outcries? No.

Until this is on the News, no one will even think of caring. Think about Abu Ghraib. Were there any public outcries? No.

I don't know what it was like in the US when that was first brought to light.

I do know however that in the UK most people I spoke to were disgusted by it, I know I was.

Couple of points :

1. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not regarded by the US as prisoners of war. To do so would mean that they would be subject to the Geneva Convention. Instead, the US has declared them to be "illegal combatants". It has never felt obliged to provide any legal, moral or judicial basis for such a determination.

2. The concentration camp was an invention of the British, first used during the Boer War.

Couple of points :

1. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not regarded by the US as prisoners of war. To do so would mean that they would be subject to the Geneva Convention. Instead, the US has declared them to be "illegal combatants". It has never felt obliged to provide any legal, moral or judicial basis for such a determination.
Just what I was about to say. Thanks for saving me the effort. ;)

Just what I was about to say. Thanks for saving me the effort. ;)

Thanks for your post.

I was afraid I may have been the only one who knew. One doesn't expect the Americans to make things like this too widely known.

Sure it gets little or no mention there.

Maybe, but isn't the main point that if another western nation did that with US citizens it'd be a completely different matter entirely?

Can you imagine if Britain captured american muslims fighting with the taliban in Afghanistan and kept hold of them in a camp X-Ray style joint?

I was afraid I may have been the only one who knew. One doesn't expect the Americans to make things like this too widely known.
I'm really surprised this thread went so long with no one pointing out that the problem was exactly that they're not considered POW's or given the rights detained civilians get. I figured everyone knew that, but apparently not...

Maybe, but isn't the main point that if another western nation did that with US citizens it'd be a completely different matter entirely?

Can you imagine if Britain captured american muslims fighting with the taliban in Afghanistan and kept hold of them in a camp X-Ray style joint?
BushCo. would just as soon be rid of all the Muslims in America anyway.

Thanks for your post.

I was afraid I may have been the only one who knew. One doesn't expect the Americans to make things like this too widely known.

Sure it gets little or no mention there.Oh, it gets plenty of mention here. If you care to listen for it.

There is plenty of opposition and protest of the current administrations practices and policies, including Gitmo and Abu G. and the abuse scandals there.

Unfortunately, those who vocally and vehmently condemn such things are well outnumbered by those who could give a shit.

Oh, it gets plenty of mention here. If you care to listen for it.

There is plenty of opposition and protest of the current administrations practices and policies, including Gitmo and Abu G. and the abuse scandals there.

Unfortunately, those who vocally and vehmently condemn such things are well outnumbered by those who could give a shit.

So if you are not fighting to preserve a society built on the rule of law, then, sadly, the terrorists have already won.

Morality, legality, and justice are not determined by nationality or creed.

I think the fact that they are not POWs is the very point of this thread.

George Bush has made up this term 'illegal combatants' purely so he doesn't have to release these men or give them a trial. If they were POWs he would have to release them: if they were civil prisoners he would have to give them a trial. Bush, out of some warped notion of revenge, has broken not only international law but the laws of his own country.

And as to the charge that the British invented concentration camps in the Boer war: entirely true, I admit. However they were not created out of malice or with the intent to kill people. Orginally they were meant as safe holding pens for homeless refugees. Unfortunately disease was rife which meant many died.

It's been 3 years. Why aren't they either

1. Charged, and if found gulity of a crime, punished.

2. Set free.

How long till you anti-america people get over yourselves? You act like we're theo nly country that does this. Doesn't really give an excuse but where were all you jerks when Russia was raping chechnya in 1998-2001? OR are they not important enough?

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

It's been 3 years. Why aren't they either

1. Charged, and if found gulity of a crime, punished.

2. Set free.
A good number have been set free...

And you have some proof to back up this incredible statement?
So what's so libertarian about it? Surely the way of liberty is to provide
a) charges, and
b) a fair trial

How long till you anti-america people get over yourselves? You act like we're theo nly country that does this. Doesn't really give an excuse but where were all you jerks when Russia was raping chechnya in 1998-2001? OR are they not important enough?
We didn't notice Russia ever proclaiming itself to be a beacon of liberty in the world. And the fact that other countries do it is no reason to excuse America.

But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …
Most pacifists want peace, freedom and more democracy, so how are they admirers of totalitarianism, which provides none of these things?

The reason many pacifist writers seem to "have it out" for Britain and America more than others is simply reaction. Reaction to the constant stream of propaganda from these governments who claim to be carrying forward the beacon of liberty and peace. They want to expose these governments for the liars that they are.

since the us supreme court said so. and since they are pows

Umm No. Those in Guantanamo are not prisoners of war. The big case on the matter Rasul v. Bush says that they have the right to file habeas corpus petitions, which doesn't mean a whole lot, but it didn't say they all get Prisoner of War status. I don't know why they don't get POW status, but they are considered unlawful enemy combatants like spies or saboteurs.

I guess what it comes down to is that POW status is given to soldiers in Uniform who are captured in the battlefield. Taliban types don't wear uniforms. I think thats the reasoning.

The reason many pacifist writers seem to "have it out" for Britain and America more than others is simply reaction. Reaction to the constant stream of propaganda from these governments who claim to be carrying forward the beacon of liberty and peace. They want to expose these governments for the liars that they are.

It's so nice to find you arguing with George Orwell.

2. The concentration camp was an invention of the British, first used during the Boer War.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but they didnt kill more than 10 million people most of them unrightfully imprisoned because of their religion culture social statul or lack of respect for the govt

Umm No. Those in Guantanamo are not prisoners of war. The big case on the matter Rasul v. Bush says that they have the right to file habeas corpus petitions, which doesn't mean a whole lot, but it didn't say they all get Prisoner of War status. I don't know why they don't get POW status, but they are considered unlawful enemy combatants like spies or saboteurs.

I guess what it comes down to is that POW status is given to soldiers in Uniform who are captured in the battlefield. Taliban types don't wear uniforms. I think thats the reasoning.

The Nazis executed partisans and commandoes using the same logic.

Were they right, or are you wrong?

Umm No. Those in Guantanamo are not prisoners of war. The big case on the matter Rasul v. Bush says that they have the right to file habeas corpus petitions, which doesn't mean a whole lot, but it didn't say they all get Prisoner of War status. I don't know why they don't get POW status, but they are considered unlawful enemy combatants like spies or saboteurs.

I guess what it comes down to is that POW status is given to soldiers in Uniform who are captured in the battlefield. Taliban types don't wear uniforms. I think thats the reasoning.
yes, they are prisoners of war, by declaring them non-pow is a cheap little loop hole bush made himself in order to do what he likes to and with them without giving a reason for international intervention

The Nazis executed partisans and commandoes using the same logic.

Were they right, or are you wrong?


Don't shoot the messenger! I was just trying to clear up some confusion.

Of course the Guantanamo shit is f'd up. Its like oh sorry you can't file a habeas corpus appeal because you are in Cuba not america so US federal courts don't have jurisdiction despite the fact that the lease for the land the base is on is from the Batista era and the Cuban government refuses to accept american rent payments for its use.

It is so crazy to me that we actually have a military base on Cuba. Can you imagine if we set up a military base in Syria or North Korea? Or better yet if China set up a base in California and docked Chinese naval warships there? It is mind blowingly crazy.

If you were given the power to do so, would "you" give them the POW status?

If the answer's yes (for most), then the problem's not with the American people, but with its govt.

Actually, Guantanamo Bay (camp X-Ray), is infact a POW camp as defined under the Genva convention, because it is used to house the PRISONERS taken in America's crappy WAR on terror.

America is in gross contravention of many of the UN's laws. :upyours:

The UN is not world government, nor do its resolutions hold the force of law.

Otherwise, they would call them laws, not resolutions.

It is useful, also, to notice that the Hague and Geneva Conventions were formulated WITHOUT the help of the UN.

Nor has the UN been successful in enforcing its own resolutions. By and large, if it weren't for the US, none of them would have ever been enforced.

So stop calling its resolutions laws, and stop trying to make out like it's the world government.

Signatories to the convention are free to interpret it. It's not as though the government or military decided to do this without consulting lawyers who specialize in the Geneva Conventions.

There is ample legal precedence for holding people who are not official members of an army (or national military) as "armed combantants" who are not according full protection of the Geneva Convention.

I suggest that the next time you say that the US is in violation, you should read the section on armed combatants.

Technically, they could be shot without trial. On arrival. The people in Guantanamo are classified as "armed combatants".

I think that the point really is that Bush thinks that he can do whatever the hell he wants. Illegal combatant is a convieniant term to deny people their right to trials. Either their POW's or criminals who deserve speedy trials and lawyers. This invention of Bush's is anti-American, anti-democratic. I can understand that terrorists are among the lowest of scum, but scum have rights to and you can't go down the road of cutting corners.

I think that the point really is that Bush thinks that he can do whatever the hell he wants. Illegal combatant is a convieniant term to deny people their right to trials. Either their POW's or criminals who deserve speedy trials and lawyers. This invention of Bush's is anti-American, anti-democratic. I can understand that terrorists are among the lowest of scum, but scum have rights to and you can't go down the road of cutting corners.

Well, perhaps we should all go back and have another session of the Geneva Convention to hash out the definitions.

Technically, to be a criminal that could be arrested by the US, you would have to commit your crime on US territory. And to be a prisoner of war, you technically have to be an official member of an official armed force (i.e., you have a uniform issued to you by your government, along with ID papers and an ID tag). If you're armed, and don't fit either category, and are shooting at US troops, the Geneva Convention says you're an "armed combatant".

They're giving them military trials now. That's more than the Convention gives them. I'm sure that if Bush was as evil as you say, he would have had them executed, and he would have still been within the Convention.

Please note that Lyndon Johnson personally approved having "armed combatants" (defined by him as VC leaders who were recalcitrant to talk) thrown from Air Force cargo planes on the way to Guam at over 30,000 feet.

They were listed as "Escaped".

Bush seems to be a little better at following the rules than his predecessors.

Secret trials and being denied lawyers and certian evidence and witnesses to come forward because of vague "national security" concerns isn't exactly fair. Bush should open these "trials" that he is having to the public. And have them now. His policies are contravertial so Ashcroft was thrown out as a sacrifice. Being held without being charged is not american. These prisoners being held in Cuba accused of terrorism? Charge them and throw their asses in jail! Not simply imprison them without benefit of trial.

I also don't want to compare Bush to past presidents. Even if he is slightly better for sake of arguement in POW matters then a previous president, that doesn't make him so great.

Yes lets open all the trials, give the miltias and terrorists martyrs and heros. YEah we can't hold prisoners, we're big bad america with big bad dictator george bush. Seriously here, Get over it. I'm not so sure that the insurgents gave the captured civilians,contractors, and international soldiers a proper trial. They just lobbed off their friggin' heads.

As for the UN.. look at their track record? Bosnia Herzegovina was an utter failure so guess who they call to help? the US. Ireland. Poland. Great Britain. you notice anytime UN isn't on operations its "america sucks, Stupid americans. " then as soon as the shit hits the fan... Examples.. Somalia..Bosnia.. Kosovo... Who does the UN call upon? The United States and her allies.. where do they reach for economic support?.. The United States and her Allies... and who do the people constantly bash even though we're first in line to help and never say no? United States of America. You may think its propganada... But its facts, Deal with it.

Go Bush.
God Save Ireland.
Remember the greatest leader, Bobby Sands.

After World War Two began the widespread trials of Nazis from the highest politicans to the lowest lieutenants. Those being tried from the military were often accused of breaking the Geneva Convention which was quite true. As was shown by the film The Great Escape the Nazis often executed POWs who had surrendered. For this crime, many Nazi officers were put to death - whether or not that is right is another discussion for another time.

But today in America, the rules of the international law are blatantly defied by the monstrosity that is Guantanmo Bay. Here Bush has sunk to new levels of depravitiy and by that measure taken the entire USA with him. He has invented a new status of war criminal to fit his unscrupulous ends. The men in Guantanmo Bay are treated like animals, forced to crawl on all fours like dogs in their orange jumpsuits. They are tortured by sensory deprivation and other more conventional means in order to beat out confessions. In doing this America has pushed itself to the level of the lowest dictatorship. These men are denied a trial, they are even denied lawyers. Instead they suffer voicelessly for crimes that have not even been proven. There is no hope for escape, no hope for an end. The US has denied them not only international law but its own laws for in the Constitution it states that no man may be imprisoned without a trial. The prisoners of Guantanmo have not been proven guilty nor have they been proven innocent but still they suffer. All of this, Bush says, in the name of necessity. As Pitt the Younger once said:
Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants: the creed of slaves.
And so the Land of the Free has lost its freedom to the call of necessity. How long will it be for George Bush decides that all those critising his government are aiding and abetting terrorists and therefore should be locked up in the name of necessity? What harm would a trial do? If these men are guilty of terrorism then so be it: then lock them away and throw away the key. And if they are not guilty then surely the FBI could keep track of these men with sure and simple ease. Oh yes that could cost more than to keep them in their cells but when since has human liberty been measured in pounds and pence?

But what of the charges levelled at these prisoners? Terrorism, says the White House but many were probably serving the Taliban. Was the Taliban itself a terrorist organisation? It may have condoned terrorist camps and terrorist action but it was still a foreign government and those who served it believed they were only doing their duty. They are not guilty of terrorism: they are guilty of fighting for the wrong side which is no crime.

Many of the prisoners are not even from Arabic nations. What of those possessing British or French passports? Surely its for Britain to try them under British laws. Despite the 'special' relationship between these two nations, America cannot return the support Britain gave. Britain asks for the return of its citizens to face British justice. It asks that international law and international treaties be honoured by the USA. But each request is met by the same blank stare of the Bush administration. While British soldiers bleed on the deserts of Iraq in an American war, the British government is still denied the most basic of requests. In Britain, the people want their fellow citizens to face their laws and their customs - the laws of liberty and the customs of justice. British citizens are guarnteed a trial under English law - America would have break these promises and render them hollow.

For violating international law, Nazi officers were shot. For violating international law, the Americans are said to be the champions of liberty. Holding POWs without trial is contary to the laws of liberty. America has placed its liberty on the alter of necessity.

ok, here is the other choice...

under the Geneva Convention, Laws of War and other relevent international agreements, an armed combatant captured under arms can be SHOT WITHOUT TRIAL. Does seem a little heavy handed doesn't it?

or

under the old laws of the sea, a person who fights a war or acts as a combatant without having the benefit of fighting for a country is either a mercenary or a pirate. Pirates are subject to trial and execution. Mercanaries are frequently subject to the same sort of treatment. In not in uniform mercenaries are either pirates or spies, if in uniform they are POWS.

or

A Spy has historically and customarily subject to execution, either with or without trial.

So which are these people in Gitmo and other US holding facilities?

Yes lets open all the trials, give the miltias and terrorists martyrs and heros. YEah we can't hold prisoners, we're big bad america with big bad dictator george bush. Seriously here, Get over it. I'm not so sure that the insurgents gave the captured civilians,contractors, and international soldiers a proper trial. They just lobbed off their friggin' head

So you would place America on the same level as insurgents and terrorists? America is supposedly a civilised country and civilised countries should not operate on a tit for tat basis. America is not the same as a group of insurgents. America is a country of liberties and freedoms (or so we are told) with a justice system based on the anglo saxon idea of common law and habeaus corpus. Insurgents are a rag tag bunch of ruthless killers to whom the ends justify the means. If America refuses these prisoners their rights then they lowering themselves to the level of insurgents.

After World War Two began the widespread trials of Nazis from the highest politicans to the lowest lieutenants. Those being tried from the military were often accused of breaking the Geneva Convention which was quite true. As was shown by the film The Great Escape the Nazis often executed POWs who had surrendered. For this crime, many Nazi officers were put to death - whether or not that is right is another discussion for another time.

Oddly enough, many officers of the Allied Forces (ie the Winning Team) who commited many of the same atrocities (Dresden anyone?) were not put on trial at Nuremburg.

Same with WW1. Many of the things Germany were accused of, The Allies had done either the same thing or seomething similar. Yet, none of those countries were made to pay.

Stalin, Zhukov, Mao, even Roosevelt. They all comitted atrocites but none were put on trial, because their side war.

Granted, their respective militaries may have punished the offenders(rare if ever), but there was no historic international trial.

An honest apparaisal of Nuremburg would simply cement in your mind one simple fact: The only crime in war is losing.

Yes lets open all the trials, give the miltias and terrorists martyrs and heros. YEah we can't hold prisoners, we're big bad america with big bad dictator george bush. ...
Go Bush.
God Save Ireland.
Remember the greatest leader, Bobby Sands.

Bobby Sands, as I recall, was a member of the IRA.

Now, the IRA, again as I recall, were taking part in an armed struggle, or, if you prefer, were terrorists. They certainly were not uniformed whilst on active operations, and were indistinguishable from the local civilian population, placing them outside the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

I also seem to recall that Bobby Sands died while on hunger strike, with that hunger strike called in order for IRA prisoners, particularly those in the "H" block, to be regarded as "political prisoners", instead of common criminals.

The case does bear somewhat striking (no pun intended) similarities to the situation with detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

I would be most curious to see how you would attempt to reconcile two seemingly contradictory viewpoints.

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

It is a clear human rights violation, what is going on at Guantanamo Bay. And it is clear that the US holds no respect for human rights when they wilfully keep people in such a state of legal limbo - no matter what term they invent to call the people whose human rights they are violating.

Bump

Signatories to the convention are free to interpret it. It's not as though the government or military decided to do this without consulting lawyers who specialize in the Geneva Conventions.

There is ample legal precedence for holding people who are not official members of an army (or national military) as "armed combantants" who are not according full protection of the Geneva Convention.

I suggest that the next time you say that the US is in violation, you should read the section on armed combatants.

Technically, they could be shot without trial. On arrival. The people in Guantanamo are classified as "armed combatants".
Had they been shot without trial the US could have spared itself a lot of trouble.

What would you do with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? If you give them a trial and find that they were armed enemies what do you do? Do you release them since the war in Afghanistan is effectively over? Wouldn't they just return to Afghanistan and destabilize the fledgeling government? Do you keep them in prison? If so you haven't really accomplished anything, have you? What if you find there's no evidence to hold them and release them? Several who have been released have gone back to terrorism. There's no easy answer.

Gitmo is bad, but how dare you compare it to Nazi Germany? Auschwitz was a systematic torture and killing process that could easily be called the worst violation of human rights throughout history! Guantanamo Bay, as bad as it is, is not Auschwitz!

Gitmo is bad, but how dare you compare it to Nazi Germany? Auschwitz was a systematic torture and killing process that could easily be called the worst violation of human rights throughout history! Guantanamo Bay, as bad as it is, is not Auschwitz!

I dont actually compare Guantannmo to the Nazis. I just say that the Nazis were shot for violating international law whereas the Americans break that law and are cheered as champions of liberty. The irony within that is obvious.