NationStates Jolt Archive

Supreme Court has just ruled that the Bush Admin did not have the authority to order military-tribunal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

What do you think will be the fall-out of this?

edit: I heard it on BBC. Here's their first article on it:
US court rejects Guantanamo trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm)

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.

In a landmark decision, justices upheld the challenge by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, against his trial at Guantanamo Bay.

The court's ruling that the proceedings violated Geneva Conventions is seen as a major blow to the administration.

Mr Hamdan is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal.

He is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution would face more obstacles.

The Supreme Court are obviously Communist Pinkoes and Far-Left Muslim Apologists. They're not patriotic enough and should be hung from the nearest lamppost using pig guts.

*Nods*

Not surprised, when's the last time a military tribunal being used was not severely biased towards prosecution?

I am confused. What exactly did the Court say? Do we have to give Jury trials to terrorists?

Supreme Court has just ruled that the Bush Admin did not have the authority to order military-tribunal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

What do you think will be the fall-out of this?
The Pres lawyers will argue they won't get trials then.

The Supreme Court are obviously Communist Pinkoes and Far-Left Muslim Apologists. They're not patriotic enough and should be hung from the nearest lamppost using pig guts.

*Nods*
I don't know why you even bothered to take the time to write that.

I mean, duh.

I was hoping for something a bit more indepth than just stating the bloody obvious.

I am confused. What exactly did the Court say? Do we have to give Jury trials to terrorists?

You should. Isnt "Liberty what makes America"?

You should. Isnt "Liberty what makes America"?
Maybe in the Soviet Union, commie.

Good on the Supreme Court. Move the bad boys to the US Mainland, put them in prisons, and try them legally in civil courts, that's what I say.

Maybe in the Soviet Union, commie.

Commie?

lol

I wonder if georgie is gonna pull an andrew jackson - "He made his ruling, now let him enforce it" - and just ignore the SC

The Supreme Court are obviously Communist Pinkoes and Far-Left Muslim Apologists. They're not patriotic enough and should be hung from the nearest lamppost using pig guts.
Damn activist judges! :p

You should. Isnt "Liberty what makes America"?

I don't exactly understand what that catch phrase means so...no. What did the ruling say? I don't get it.

I wonder if georgie is gonna pull an andrew jackson - "He made his ruling, now let him enforce it" - and just ignore the SC
He's not a super-popular pol like Jackson was. If he tried it, he'd probably be impeached.

I wonder if georgie is gonna pull an andrew jackson - "He made his ruling, now let him enforce it" - and just ignore the SC

thats what i'm expecting, along with the wiretapping. he'll jut ignore the court, just like dandy andy action jackson.

I don't exactly understand what that catch phrase means so...no. What did the ruling say? I don't get it.
"Military justice is to justice what military music is to music." - Groucho Marx

I am confused. What exactly did the Court say? Do we have to give Jury trials to terrorists?
Hurrah for the blinkered right-wing mindset that blindly accepts all Whitehouse announcements without question and views all Muslims as sub-human terrorists not deserving of even the most basic rights of law.

hey so the SC is saying that america isnt a Stalinistic Dictatorship, dang I thought it was...
Guess i lost 5$

Might be more interesting to read the decision and then comment.

It might mean that the people in Gitmo stay there indefinitely - until the end of the conflict, unless the Supreme Court mentioned something about that in their decision.

He's not a super-popular pol like Jackson was. If he tried it, he'd probably be impeached.
they'd cry for his head, but congress would still be republican, and (most likely) not impeach him. not because they agree, but because it signifies weakness in the party for the party to impeach its own man.

Hurrah for the blinkered right-wing mindset that blindly accepts all Whitehouse announcements without question and views all Muslims as sub-human terrorists not deserving of even the most basic rights of law.


Hey another person knows all about me without meeting me or reading more than 4 sentences authored by me. Nice to meet you too.

Might be more interesting to read the decision and then comment.

It might mean that the people in Gitmo stay there indefinitely - until the end of the conflict, unless the Supreme Court mentioned something about that in their decision.

The end of the conflict? Somehow I doubt ism will ever die.

Hey another person knows all about me without meeting me or reading more than 4 sentences authored by me. Nice to meet you too.
Wow. I'm amazed that you managed to post 500+ replies, yet write only 4 sentences. What's your secret? Lots and lots of semi-colons?

Hey another person knows all about me without meeting me or reading more than 4 sentences authored by me. Nice to meet you too.
you've discovered how wiretapping works!

hooray spying!

Wow. I'm amazed that you managed to post 500+ replies, yet write only 4 sentences. What's your secret? Lots and lots of semi-colons?


You read all of my posts? Cool! Tell me where I said that I thought all Muslims were "sub-human"!

you've discovered how wiretapping works!

hooray spying!

Stop revealing his wiretapping operations! Who the hell do you think you are, those Communist sonsofbitches at the NYTimes?

So I guess now we can't give the inmates at Gitmo trials. What a shame!

Stop revealing his wiretapping operations! Who the hell do you think you are, those Communist sonsofbitches at the NYTimes?


aw, the Times is not communist.....I always thought of them more as...Benedict Arnold types.

Stop revealing his wiretapping operations! Who the hell do you think you are, those Communist sonsofbitches at the NYTimes?

no, i'm the socialist sonofabitch at the philly inquirer!

feel my freedom in yo face mothafucka!

aw, the Times is not communist.....I always thought of them more as...Benedict Arnold types.

The NYTimes is defecting to the British? News to me...

So I guess now we can't give the inmates at Gitmo trials. What a shame!

Now you can torture them for as long as you want!

I am confused. What exactly did the Court say? Do we have to give Jury trials to terrorists?

The court said that Bush needs to stop ignoring US law and the Geneva Convention.

The NYTimes is defecting to the British? News to me...
soon you'll see columns on how sven goren ericksson should have left beckham off the team and how the english will never be good enough in football.

soon you'll see columns on how sven goren ericksson should have left beckham off the team and how the english will never be good enough in football.
Which would be accurate reporting for once.

Now you can torture them for as long as you want!

Didn't you know? It now goes...

Innocent until proven guilty.....unless we've alredy decided.

Anyway I thought they all got sent to Guantanamo simply because they were outside the law there and the US military COULD do whatever they liked to them without any reference to the law, geneva conventions or anything else. That was the whole point, surely?

Which would be accurate reporting for once.

Seen that plenty of times over here in the UK.

Or are you still talking about the NY Times?

Admittedly, I haven't done research into the legal issues surrounding the prisoners but I don't see why we cannot treat them the same way we treated German spies and SS officers in WWII. What's the big hold-up?

He either gives them no trial at all and holds them as prisoners of war until the war ends. Or he tries them in a method deemed Constitutional by the supreme court.

He has no other options but to let them go . Thats what democracy and a constitutional republic stand for.

So they get trials and get sentenced and get put in a hole .

I see no problem with that . Nor do I see any problem in changing their status so that other laws and methods can be used .:)


The Supreme Court is considering whether fair trial provisions of the Geneva Conventions apply to military tribunals for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


So whats wrong with that ?


The ruling does not demand the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo but gives the administration an opportunity to come up with another way of trying those held.

or this ?


And BTW I see NO news that the court has decided anything except from the BBC ??

Why is that ?

The Supreme Court will be in session Wednesday, with five cases still to be decided:

_ GUANTANAMO TRIALS: Whether President Bush has overstepped his authority with military war-crimes trials for foreigners held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Supreme Court has just ruled that the Bush Admin did not have the authority to order military-tribunal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

What do you think will be the fall-out of this?

edit: I heard it on BBC. Here's their first article on it:
US court rejects Guantanamo trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm)


Continuation of Boncentration Bamps - minus military tribunal.
Perhaps trial-by-ordeal instead.

Good on the Supreme Court. Move the bad boys to the US Mainland, put them in prisons, and try them legally in civil courts, that's what I say.

Legally they should be tried by the military or not tried at all.

I do not agree with this decision but it is made and now we'll see what comes next.

I wonder if georgie is gonna pull an andrew jackson - "He made his ruling, now let him enforce it" - and just ignore the SC

He can do that :D

you've discovered how wiretapping works!

hooray spying!
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1510938

And here is how to check for them :)

I am confused. What exactly did the Court say? Do we have to give Jury trials to terrorists?

They said that you cannot try them as 'enemy combatants' in military court. If they're not prisoners of war, then they are to be tried in a criminal court. There are no such thing as 'enemy combatants'.

The court said that Bush needs to stop ignoring US law and the Geneva Convention.

Funny thing is...these asshats aren't protected by the Geneva Convention nor are they subject to US Law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5520809


Nahhh He'll just change their status according to whatever the legal team decides and try those effected by this decision either in a federal court or a special court made up to satisfy the Supreme courts decision.

Its a good thing to see our reublics safe guards in action .

Funny thing is...these asshats aren't protected by the Geneva Convention nor are they subject to US Law.

According to the Supreme COurt's decision, they must be subject to one or the other.

According to the Supreme COurt's decision, they must be subject to one or the other.

Sounds logical.
But - and this is a HUGE but!

Do you expect Dubya to be swayed by... logic?

Sounds logical.
But - and this is a HUGE but!

Do you expect Dubya to be swayed by... logic?

Hasn't worked yet. :(

According to the Supreme COurt's decision, they must be subject to one or the other.
Seems rather reasonable to me … why the hell don’t they want to treat them as prisoners of war anyways?

Hasn't worked yet. :(

*nods*
Hence I predict a stunning reversal to trial-by-ordeal...

*nods*
Hence I predict a stunning reversal to trial-by-ordeal...

If the bullet doesn't bounce off their head, they are innocent? Something like that?

Seems rather reasonable to me … why the hell don’t they want to treat them as prisoners of war anyways?

At least according to the Geneva Conventions, they do not have the legal status or protections afforded to enemy combatants because, at least in the case of Al Qaeda, they are not members of an official state army, nor are they wearing any uniform or even armbands to distinguish themselves from the public. Even the paramilitary Waffen SS was given protection under the GC because they were in uniform and the Nazi government officially considered them part of their state. This is not the case with Al Qaeda.

Does this give us the right to torture them and hold them without trial for so long? Legally, perhaps, since it's such a gray area. Morally, we're being arrogant jerks and stooping to the level of the people we're supposed to be fighting.

If the bullet doesn't bounce off their head, they are innocent? Something like that?

Are you applying for a job with the Bush team?



*dresses up in black+silver uniform*

Today, ve play ze game of mind over matter!
Ve take 1000 enemy-combatants and zrow zem of ze kliff.
Ve dont mind - zey don't matter!

At least according to the Geneva Conventions, they do not have the legal status or protections afforded to enemy combatants because, at least in the case of Al Qaeda, they are not members of an official state army, nor are they wearing any uniform or even armbands to distinguish themselves from the public. Even the paramilitary Waffen SS was given protection under the GC because they were in uniform and the Nazi government officially considered them part of their state. This is not the case with Al Qaeda.

Does this give us the right to torture them and hold them without trial for so long? Legally, perhaps, since it's such a gray area. Morally, we're being arrogant jerks and stooping to the level of the people we're supposed to be fighting.

Indeed. Which leaves by process of elimination; criminal trials. So the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees in question(the ten involved in this particular case) have right to legal counsel. That will therefore set precedent for the remaining prisoners. The SUpreme COurt just gave them the right to have an attorney.

Which is a major setback for Bush Administration Justice. :p

According to the Supreme COurt's decision, they must be subject to one or the other.

According to the Convention, they are not protected BY the convention.

According to the Convention, they are not protected BY the convention.

Precisely. WHich leaves, by process of elimination....

Are you applying for a job with the Bush team?


I'll take the trial by ordeal instead thanks ;)

You're not suggesting there's the slightest chance that a mistaik could have been made and that one of them could actually be innocent are you?

*note to self: Must stop using irony

Precisely. WHich leaves, by process of elimination....

And yet....

they aren't protected under the Constitution either.

And yet....

they aren't protected under the Constitution either.

Of course they are. They are as protected as any other foreign criminal in the U.S. Why wouldn't they be?

I'll take the trial by ordeal instead thanks ;)

You're not suggesting there's the slightest chance that a mistaik could have been made and that one of them could actually be innocent are you?

*note to self: Must stop using irony

Er, I think it's 70-30 at best...

At least according to the Geneva Conventions, they do not have the legal status or protections afforded to enemy combatants because, <snip>
Correction: ...according to the portions of the Geneva Convention that the US is signatory to...

The Geneva Convention does indeed contain protections for fighters the US is defining as "illegal enemy combatants". We just refuse to acknowledge those protections.

It's now up to the Bush administration to decide whether to try to construct military tribunals in such a way that detainees' rights are protected, funnel those cases into the US criminal court system (difficult since the "crime" they're accused of occured outside of any domestic jurisdiction), or apply the Geneva Convention.

Of course they are. They are as protected as any other foreign criminal in the U.S. Why wouldn't they be?

Conservative response: "Because Bush doesn't wanna, and he wants to torture, kill and sodomize them, and I support him for doing the kind of things we condemn in Iran, and if you don't want them to suffer as well regardless of innocence or guilt you're un-American! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH, THE SUPREME COURT STOLE MY BLOOD LOLLIPOP!!!"

Er, I think it's 70-30 at best...

Wonder what the administration thinks it is. Presumably not 100-0 otherwise they would have put them on trial by now in one form or another.

It would be far too cynical of me to suggest that any further delay would give them an opportunity to beat the remainder into a confession.

So I won't.

Supreme Court has just ruled that the Bush Admin did not have the authority to order military-tribunal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

What do you think will be the fall-out of this?

edit: I heard it on BBC. Here's their first article on it:
US court rejects Guantanamo trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm)
Clearly, this is a call by the Supremes that the prisoners should be shot while escaping.

Wonder what the administration thinks it is. Presumably not 100-0 otherwise they would have put them on trial by now in one form or another.

It would be far too cynical of me to suggest that any further delay would give them an opportunity to beat the remainder into a confession.

So I won't.
It's not a question of what they did, it's a question of what can the government prove? And then there will be questions of coercion...denial of counsel...miranda rights. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. Any decent lawyer would have a field day with these cases in a criminal court.

And that's assuming the prosecution even has an actual case.

The Pres lawyers will argue they won't get trials then.
All you have to do is declare them "prisoners of war" as so many international people have, and then they don't get trials.

We could then hold them for the duration of the conflict, which would be until al-Qaeda officially surrenders.

Either that, or give them a court martial, as the plaintiff demands. A court martial is fine with me.

Clearly, this is a call by the Supremes that the prisoners should be shot while escaping.

I think Diana Ross is definitely overstepping her authority then

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

It's not a question of what they did, it's a question of what can the government prove? And then there will be questions of coercion...denial of counsel...miranda rights. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. Any decent lawyer would have a field day with these cases in a criminal court.

And that's assuming the prosecution even has an actual case.

If the President changes his mind and declares them "prisoners of war" there won't be any trials. End of story.

We could then hold them for the duration of the conflict, which would be until al-Qaeda officially surrenders.


Except that they were mostly "detained" during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought those wars were over. At least thats what Dubya said, IIRC.

Of course if it can be proved that they are members of al-Qaeda then you have a point. Except of course that its not a war in legal terms, however much it is labelled as such by the US administration.

Tricky innit.

If the President changes his mind and declares them "prisoners of war" there won't be any trials. End of story.

And you find this a good thing, even with the probability of innocents caught up in the mess?

All you have to do is declare them "prisoners of war" as so many international people have, and then they don't get trials.

We could then hold them for the duration of the conflict, which would be until al-Qaeda officially surrenders.

Either that, or give them a court martial, as the plaintiff demands. A court martial is fine with me.
There would have to be a defined conflict. A war against an idea is not a defined conflict. The only defined conflicts have been declared finished by the person who ordered them.

Except that they were mostly "detained" during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought those wars were over. At least thats what Dubya said, IIRC.

Of course if it can be proved that they are members of al-Qaeda then you have a point. Except of course that its not a war in legal terms, however much it is labelled as such by the US administration.

Tricky innit.

Worse. War with Al-Qaeda gves them the right to take prisoners too.

Except that they were mostly "detained" during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought those wars were over. At least thats what Dubya said, IIRC.

Of course if it can be proved that they are members of al-Qaeda then you have a point. Except of course that its not a war in legal terms, however much it is labelled as such by the US administration.

Tricky innit.

Being labeled a "prisoner of war" does not require any legal hearing. The military merely has to state it. Tricky innit.

Being labeled a "prisoner of war" does not require any legal hearing. The military merely has to state it. Tricky innit.

A uniform usually helps.

A uniform usually helps.
Not according to almost every country in the world who insisted that the US apply "prisoner of war" status to the detainees. They think that anyone captured in combat of any kind (despite the wording of the Conventions) is a prisoner of war.

So we can go with their definition. After all, they are hardly likely to turn around and change their minds and say that they were wrong.

There would have to be a defined conflict. A war against an idea is not a defined conflict. The only defined conflicts have been declared finished by the person who ordered them.

A comedian over here called it declaring war on a concept.

War on clutter, anyone?

Not according to almost every country in the world who insisted that the US apply "prisoner of war" status to the detainees. They think that anyone captured in combat of any kind (despite the wording of the Conventions) is a prisoner of war.

So we can go with their definition. After all, they are hardly likely to turn around and change their minds and say that they were wrong.

In which case, the wars they were involved in are over and they should be released.

Not according to almost every country in the world who insisted that the US apply "prisoner of war" status to the detainees. They think that anyone captured in combat of any kind (despite the wording of the Conventions) is a prisoner of war.

They didn't even have the common courtesy to wear armbands like the Sturmabteilung and Communist party did. :p

In which case, the wars they were involved in are over and they should be released.
The "Global War On Terror".

Until al-Qaeda surrenders officially...

Worse. War with Al-Qaeda gves them the right to take prisoners too.
They don't usually. They explicitly stated that they were not party to the Conventions.

They demonstrated this during the first days of the invasion of Afghanistan by immediately executing a captured Navy SEAL.

Out of curiosity, Deep Kimchi, what do you have against seeing these people have their day in court?

They don't usually. They explicitly stated that they were not party to the Conventions.

They demonstrated this during the first days of the invasion of Afghanistan by immediately executing a captured Navy SEAL.

I remember that. Awful. :(

When was war officially declared on Al-Queda?

I refer you to post 76.

(For the record I am not saying they should all be released, just that there should be some attempt to establish guilt of some kind. - in case the flamers pick up on this later)

The "Global War On Terror".

Until al-Qaeda surrenders officially...
Does al-Queda solely constitute terrorism, or "terror"?

Does al-Queda solely constitute terrorism, or "terror"?

And how do you demonstrate that those detained are members of al-qaeda.

And that's me done for the day. No worries we'll all still be here in the morning, still going round in circles ;)

And how do you demonstrate that those detained are members of al-qaeda.

And that's me done for the day. No worries we'll all still be here in the morning, still going round in circles ;)

It's not necessary to demonstrate anything. According to the European nations which admonish us to declare them prisoners of war, we merely have to state it.

End of story!

It's not necessary to demonstrate anything. According to the European nations which admonish us to declare them prisoners of war, we merely have to state it.

End of story!

And that is FAIR?

Have you lost your fucking mind???

And that is FAIR?

Have you lost your fucking mind???

Did the European nations that told us to do that lose their fucking minds?

Ask them!

It's not necessary to demonstrate anything. According to the European nations which admonish us to declare them prisoners of war, we merely have to state it.

End of story!
If you can't prove they are members of al-Queda, they can't be labeled prisoners of war as al-Queda guerillas, or whatever you want to try.

If you can't prove they are members of al-Queda, they can't be labeled prisoners of war as al-Queda guerillas, or whatever you want to try.
That's not what the Europeans told us when they admonished us.

That's not what the Europeans told us when they admonished us.
I spy a double standard! Say the European opinion doesn't matter until you can twist their words to suit your needs. Let's ignore law in forming an opinion and instead base it on twisted interpretation of general commentary!

I spy a double standard! Say the European opinion doesn't matter until you can twist their words to suit your needs. Let's ignore law in forming an opinion and instead base it on twisted interpretation of general commentary!
No, our Supreme Court seems to have taken the European side of things.

We can either try them by court martial, or in US courts (if we want to classify them as criminals), or if they are prisoners of war, they rot.

Some interesting excerpts:

(Article 5):"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

(Article 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."

(Article 60): "The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay..."

(Article 72): "Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive ... 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."


This is going to be fun! :)

Some interesting excerpts:

(Article 5):"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

They've already had the status tribunals, which were apparently legal.

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Can't take it back.

(Article 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."

They live in an air conditioned supermax. Seems comparable to me, except that they can't run away.

(Article 60): "The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay..." Luckily for us, most were volunteers.

(Article 72): "Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive ... 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."

They already do, unless they plan to commit suicide with the drapes.

the US SC have said what a lot of us have said all along; the white house is trying to be a legal smartarse and it hasnt worked.

they are either POW's or terrorists. very simple inventing the phrase 'battlefield detainess' was a load of bs and the courts have told them so.

to me this ruling is very positive for the US's image abroad, assuming the neo-cons respect the law and try these guys or give them formal POW status.

be interesting to hear the keyboard 101st now the legal rug has been pulled from under them

the US SC have said what a lot of us have said all along; the white house is trying to be a legal smartarse and it hasnt worked.

they are either POW's or terrorists. very simple inventing the phrase 'battlefield detainess' was a load of bs and the courts have told them so.

to me this ruling is very positive for the US's image abroad, assuming the neo-cons respect the law and try these guys or give them formal POW status.

be interesting to hear the keyboard 101st now the legal rug has been pulled from under them


Formal POW status means that we can keep them indefinitely without trial.

Thank you

*bows*

Some interesting excerpts:

(Article 5):"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

(Article 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."

(Article 60): "The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay..."

(Article 72): "Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive ... 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."


This is going to be fun! :)

Forgive my ignorance, I only read the last 2 pages of the thread. What are you quoting?

Forgive my ignorance, I only read the last 2 pages of the thread. What are you quoting?
Excerpts from the articles of the Third Geneva COnvention as take from Wikipedia. *nod*

I have neither the patience nor alcohol to try to read the whole text. :p

Formal POW status means that we can keep them indefinitely without trial.

Thank you

*bows*

*and hits head on ground*

Who is the USA officially at war with right now? No one.
They were at war with the Sadam Hussein regime in Iraq, but they are not at war with Iraq any more. (Or have they declared war on Iraq's new government without telling anyone?)

If they are prisoners of war they have to be released.

*and hits head on ground*

Who is the USA officially at war with right now? No one.
They were at war with the Sadam Hussein regime in Iraq, but they are not at war with Iraq any more. (Or have they declared war on Iraq's new government without telling anyone?)

If they are prisoners of war they have to be released.

We're at war with al-Qaeda, and most of the detainees at Guantanamo are from the conflict in Afghanistan.

As may be noted, their forces are still viable and fighting.

Excerpts from the articles of the Third Geneva COnvention as take from Wikipedia. *nod*

I have neither the patience nor alcohol to try to read the whole text. :p
Alcohol is fun!:D

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, fulfil 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.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Does that apply to the prisoners at Gauntanamo?

Does that apply to the prisoners at Gauntanamo?

Non-US nations, the Europeans in particular, aren't sticklers about uniforms for insurgents and terrorists. They tell us to grant them prisoner of war status gratis.

We're at war with al-Qaeda, and most of the detainees at Guantanamo are from the conflict in Afghanistan.

As may be noted, their forces are still viable and fighting.

As no declaraton of war has ever been made against al-qaeda, and as any such declaration would have no legal standing given that al-qaeda is not a sovereign nation, you may claim all you want that you are at war with them, but the detainees in Gt cannot be prisoners of war with respect to this.

That al-qaeda are still fighting is irrelevant. Oh, and the war in Afghanistan ended a long time ago. The problem that the US has is that it does not know how to handle the peace.

They have to be released and repatriated if they are prisoners of war.

As no declaraton of war has ever been made against al-qaeda, and as any such declaration would have no legal standing given that al-qaeda is not a sovereign nation, you may claim all you want that you are at war with them, but the detainees in Gt cannot be prisoners of war with respect to this.

That al-qaeda are still fighting is irrelevant. Oh, and the war in Afghanistan ended a long time ago. The problem that the US has is that it does not know how to handle the peace.

They have to be released and repatriated if they are prisoners of war.


We're still fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda there. They haven't officially surrendered.

Once they officially surrender, the war is over.

The court said that Bush needs to stop ignoring US law and the Geneva Convention.



Ah but that's international law, not national law, so it doesn't apply to us. :rolleyes:


PLEASE NOTE: this was sarcasm.

Thank God almighty!

This is one of the best decisions the SC has made in a long time.

Thank God almighty!

This is one of the best decisions the SC has made in a long time.

Notice who dissented though?

F***ing predictable that the biggest dickheads on the court would decide. Thank the Force that Roberts recused himself.

Notice who dissented though?

F***ing predictable that the biggest dickheads on the court would decide. Thank the Force that Roberts recused himself.

Because he already made his judgement on the same case at a lower court.

Just so you know, if he ruled the same way, it would have been 6-3. :)

Because he already made his judgement on the same case at a lower court.

Just so you know, if he ruled the same way, it would have been 6-3. :)

So much for the idea that Roberts would be a Bush puppet...

So much for the idea that Roberts would be a Bush puppet...

Well, in his defense, he made that decision before he became their puppet. He'll probably behave himself now. :)

Well, in his defense, he made that decision before he became their puppet. He'll probably behave himself now. :)

That's what I was gonna say...;)

We're still fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda there. They haven't officially surrendered.

Once they officially surrender, the war is over.
1) The closest thing to a "war" was declared over by the person who declared its start - Bush.
2) Al-Quaeda is just a face for the war on an idea, a process, a non-physical representation of the next big thing to scare people with. No one has declared war on al-Qaeda and any war they were involved in is over.

PS. Thomas is an idealogue dick.

It's not necessary to demonstrate anything. According to the European nations which admonish us to declare them prisoners of war, we merely have to state it.

End of story!
Incorrect, under the Geneva convention they must first be found to be a prisoner of war by a competent tribunal. And the Combatant Status Review Tribunals have found the remaining detainees to not be Prisoners of War - so the President cannot change their status at a whim. Not unless he declares that the CSRT were flawed. (Which they were, since the CSRT didn't have the mandate to determine that they were POW)

1) The closest thing to a "war" was declared over by the person who declared its start - Bush.
2) Al-Quaeda is just a face for the war on an idea, a process, a non-physical representation of the next big thing to scare people with. No one has declared war on al-Qaeda and any war they were involved in is over.

PS. Thomas is an idealogue dick.


Thomas is probably the least capable member on the court, though alito might be.

Scalia is a smart guy but he's also got a black heart and no soul.

This was an important decision, decided impeccably well.

The country should celebrate.

Incorrect, under the Geneva convention they must first be found to be a prisoner of war by a competent tribunal. And the Combatant Status Review Tribunals have found the remaining detainees to not be Prisoners of War - so the President cannot change their status at a whim. Not unless he declares that the CSRT were flawed. (Which they were, since the CSRT didn't have the mandate to determine that they were POW)

Actually, Europeans demanded that they automatically be given that status.

Actually, Europeans demanded that they automatically be given that status.
Link?

Link?
It's old news, but I'll dig it up.

We were admonished repeatedly by the EU to grant them prisoner of war status immediately after we opened Guantanamo.

It's old news, but I'll dig it up.

We were admonished repeatedly by the EU to grant them prisoner of war status immediately after we opened Guantanamo.
You don't have to bother, really. It doesn't matter what the EU demanded back in 2004 - what matters is whether or not the US chooses to adhere to international law now.

You don't have to bother, really. It doesn't matter what the EU demanded back in 2004 - what matters is whether or not the US chooses to adhere to international law now.
They insisted it was international law.

Are you saying that the law changed?

They insisted it was international law.

Are you saying that the law changed?
Ok, find the link then.

And afterwards, maybe I can say that the EU was wrong :)

Ok, find the link then.

And afterwards, maybe I can say that the EU was wrong :)

We can start with Amnesty International's stance:

Amnesty International considers those held in Guantanamo are presumed to be prisoners of war.

If there is any doubt about their status, it is not the prerogative of the US secretary of defence or any other administration official to make this determination.

According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, the US must allow a "competent tribunal", which is impartial and independent, to decide on their status.

This is also the position held by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the most authoritative interpreter of the Geneva Conventions.

The rules that apply to the conflict in Afghanistan, involving the US and its allies on one side and the Taleban and al-Qaeda on the other, are those regulating international armed conflict.

The Taleban were the de facto government of Afghanistan at the start of the conflict.

The conflict is ongoing and involves the same parties on each side, so the same legal standards continue to apply.
Hmm... Amnesty seems to think they are prisoners of war. And we only need an independent tribunal if there is some doubt - which the US is unlikely to raise.

I'll keep looking...

Funny thing is...these asshats aren't protected by the Geneva Convention nor are they subject to US Law.

The court ruled that the provisions must fall within the Geneva conventions. Did you not bother to read the full decision. Bush overstapped his bounds by trying to create an entirely new legal status. Therefor his use us umproper. Finally, the majority opinion states that they must have standards as set forth by the Geneva accord. Go back and read it please so we may have a debate on the same starting ground.

Wow. I'm amazed that you managed to post 500+ replies, yet write only 4 sentences. What's your secret? Lots and lots of semi-colons?
You are effen hilarious!! :)

The court ruled that the provisions must fall within the Geneva conventions. Did you not bother to read the full decision. Bush overstapped his bounds by trying to create an entirely new legal status. Therefor his use us umproper. Finally, the majority opinion states that they must have standards as set forth by the Geneva accord. Go back and read it please so we may have a debate on the same starting ground.

Evidently, either a court martial or a civilian trial would satisfy the requirements.

As for the detainees who are unquestionably Taliban, they can be without doubt considered to be prisoners of war, and be subject to no trial. And detained indefinitely.

As for the detainees who are in doubt - i.e., we know they are al-Qaeda foreigners captured in Afghanistan, they can be subject to court martial as mercenaries.

I say make the world and the Supreme Court happy - declare the Taliban guys to be POWs, and court martial the rest as mercenaries.

Of the mercenaries that are convicted by court martial, take them out and have them shot.

Legally they should be tried by the military or not tried at all.
Obviously the SCOTUS know a little bit more about laws than you? :p

Evidently, either a court martial or a civilian trial would satisfy the requirements.

As for the detainees who are unquestionably Taliban, they can be without doubt considered to be prisoners of war, and be subject to no trial. And detained indefinitely.

As for the detainees who are in doubt - i.e., we know they are al-Qaeda foreigners captured in Afghanistan, they can be subject to court martial as mercenaries.

I say make the world and the Supreme Court happy - declare the Taliban guys to be POWs, and court martial the rest as mercenaries.

Of the mercenaries that are convicted by court martial, take them out and have them shot.


Deep Kimchi, don't you wish that NationStates had the option of "Death For All" with each issue?

We can start with Amnesty International's stance:

Hmm... Amnesty seems to think they are prisoners of war. And we only need an independent tribunal if there is some doubt - which the US is unlikely to raise.

I'll keep looking...
Um... As far as I can tell, Amnesty is saying that the US must allow a competent tribunal to decide on the status of the detainees regardless of doubt, and that the administration could not decide their status unilaterally.

Deep Kimchi, don't you wish that NationStates had the option of "Death For All" with each issue?
I'm all for a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.

I like the idea of treating them as prisioners of war. I oppose any torture of these prisoners. But the fact is, they need to be neutralized. That involves holding them as prisioners, maybe for a long time.

I would urge people who think differently to realize the whole purpose of prisioners of war. In any given war, the need to neutralize the enemy often presents itself. This is done one of two ways: by killing people, or by taking them and holding on to them until the end of the war. The idea of holding prisoners of war was constituted as a humane alternative to blowing their brains out. The bottom line is, if the US has no way of taking prisioners from a terrorist organization, than it must kill any terrorists it finds. It wouldn't hurt so-called human rights organizations to see that and realize that it must recognize that moral outrage must be mitigated by practical solutions and ways for the US to accomplish it's goals.

BTW, the words "competent tribunal" can't very well mean an international tribunal, because there were no such things at the time the convention was written. It has to mean a tribunal instituted by the power in charge of detainees.

The supreme court ruling gave bush the guidlines he has to follow to make his idea of tribunals LEGAL . Since we have not declared war constitutionally and Bush as commander in chief cant use powers only granted by the war powers act the Supreme court ...rightly so...did its job of checking the excecutive branch . It told him he needs congressional authorization to form tribunals and to procecute " enemy combatants ' .

Now if you listen to the right wing raving maniacs...the supreme court should be shot . These idiots scare me more than any left wing loony toon ever could . We are at war and we are a Democratic republic . We are also fighting a new type of war with no rules and are making them up as we go along . Its a good thing to have congress put on record as to how they want captured enemy combatants treated and tried . No one is being set loose while this moves forward . They still get to sit and wait while we figure out a humane and American way to bring them to justice .

Its the example the United States is supposed to set for the world and IMO its about time ..and better late than never.

Its a good thing to jerk the chain back once in a while on the dogs of war.
even if its just to remind them who is really in charge .

The supreme court ruling gave bush the guidlines he has to follow to make his idea of tribunals LEGAL . Since we have not declared war constitutionally and Bush as commander in chief cant use powers only granted by the war powers act the Supreme court ...rightly so...did its job of checking the excecutive branch . It told him he needs congressional authorization to form tribunals and to procecute " enemy combatants ' .

Now if you listen to the right wing raving maniacs...the supreme court should be shot . These idiots scare me more than any left wing loony toon ever could . We are at war and we are a Democratic republic . We are also fighting a new type of war with no rules and are making them up as we go along . Its a good thing to have congress put on record as to how they want captured enemy combatants treated and tried . No one is being set loose while this moves forward . They still get to sit and wait while we figure out a humane and American way to bring them to justice .

Its the example the United States is supposed to set for the world and IMO its about time ..and better late than never.

Its a good thing to jerk the chain back once in a while on the dogs of war.
even if its just to remind them who is really in charge .

Jesus Christ On A Cracker! I'm agreeing with you! :eek:


*checks the temperature in Hell* ;)

Nice post, by the way.

Jesus Christ On A Cracker! I'm agreeing with you! :eek:


*checks the temperature in Hell* ;)

Nice post, by the way.

What are the chances that Congress will give him that authority?

What are the chances that Congress will give him that authority?

Before the 2006 election or after? :p

Before the 2006 election or after? :p

I am not of the impression that the inmates of Guantanamo are really poster children for America's love of cute things.

That said, if they don't give him the authority (as the Court says that they may), will he just declare them POWs and hold them forever?

I am not of the impression that the inmates of Guantanamo are really poster children for America's love of cute things.

That said, if they don't give him the authority (as the Court says that they may), will he just declare them POWs and hold them forever?

According to the Geneva COnvention, if there was a doubt, they should have been treated as POWs all along. I suspect that making them POWs might open a bigger can of worms than it closes. But I'm not sure. I don't pretend to understand the nuances of the Geneva COnvention.

ANd as I said before, I don't have enough alcohol to try. :(

What really gets to me is that if we sentence prisoners of war or on acts of terrorism without a fair trial we are no better then the terrorists themselves. I feel we live in a "civilized" part of the world and all men/women are entitled to a fair trial before a jury.It is our right as humans No? I am also shocked by the blatent racism shown by people.. okay they are bad people but does that make us any better just because we "think" we are right.. this greatly disturbs me..
:mad:

I am not of the impression that the inmates of Guantanamo are really poster children for America's love of cute things.

That said, if they don't give him the authority (as the Court says that they may), will he just declare them POWs and hold them forever?


I suspect that even if they could be held forever, a lot would have to be done to comply with how the conventions mandate POWs be held.

Who woulda thunk it. There's still a few Americans left in the world.

Now, let's see what the Admin does next.

By the way, the Australian government signed an agreement with the Yankee government recently that allows Australians who are in prison in the US to serve their time in Australia (unless they're on death row). That would include David Hicks, if he ever was convicted of anything and sentenced to prison.

Hey another person knows all about me without meeting me or reading more than 4 sentences authored by me. Nice to meet you too.
Perhaps you fall into that category whereby some people are a "quick read"?

You're not suggesting there's the slightest chance that a mistaik could have been made and that one of them could actually be innocent are you?
Er, I think it's 70-30 at best...
Ignoring where you got that stat from, but if we're to accept it as true that means that out of the 505 prisoners still there, 152 of them are have done nothing wrong.
152 innocent ppl who have been held in a prison for 4 years now.

Does that give any rise to concern for you?

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, fulfil 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.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Look at the two parts I bolded.
How do the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda not fall into either of those two categories?
#1 just says a POW is anyone who is in the armed force of a party to the conflict. Since the war was against al Qaeda and the Taliban, surely anyone proclaiming loyalty to either is covered by this category.
#6 is even more straightforward: POW status applies to anyone who takes up arms agaisnt an invading force. A goatherder who sees the Us forces, grabs his gun and starts shooting is a POW when captured, regardless of what he's wearing or who he proclaims loyalty to.

Nothing in either of these two categories about being part of a regular armed force operating under a recognised government.
Seems to me that the Bush admin just chose to use catergories #2 - #5 for their definition of what constitutes a POW and ignored #1 and 6. Can't cherry-pick which parts of an agreement you've signed that you want to follow.

No doubt this played a part in the SCOTUS decision.

I am not of the impression that the inmates of Guantanamo are really poster children for America's love of cute things.

That said, if they don't give him the authority (as the Court says that they may), will he just declare them POWs and hold them forever?

Well the supreme court has left that up to Congress..as it stands they can be held until hostilities cease and the supreme court has also just reafirmed that as captured combatants they must be treated humanely by under the treaty Congress approved called the geneva convention . If you read the constitution only CONGRESS has the right to make or abrogate a treaty .
The Excecutive branch cant operate as if a treaty doesnt exist and cant determine who is protected under the treaty..its up to Congress to determine that .

If the president shows any form of leadership he will ask Congress for what he needs to bring the prisoners to justice and he will get it . It would be suicidal for any member of Congress to be seen as NOT supporting bringing terrorist to justice , I wou;ld be suprised if the vote was not close to unamimouse for a form of military tribunal with congressional oversite .
In fact if these fellows had the brains they were born with still in working order...they should have already done this a year or two ago .

Until and unless a formal declaration of war is issued by the Congress of the United States the presidents powers as commander and chief are limited .

This is stuff they teach in six grade ...or used to ..:rolleyes:

I guess the guys who are running shit in Washington missed that class.

Look at the two parts I bolded.
How do the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda not fall into either of those two categories?
#1 just says a POW is anyone who is in the armed force of a party to the conflict. Since the war was against al Qaeda and the Taliban, surely anyone proclaiming loyalty to either is covered by this category.
#6 is even more straightforward: POW status applies to anyone who takes up arms agaisnt an invading force. A goatherder who sees the Us forces, grabs his gun and starts shooting is a POW when captured, regardless of what he's wearing or who he proclaims loyalty to.

Nothing in either of these two categories about being part of a regular armed force operating under a recognised government.
Seems to me that the Bush admin just chose to use catergories #2 - #5 for their definition of what constitutes a POW and ignored #1 and 6. Can't cherry-pick which parts of an agreement you've signed that you want to follow.

No doubt this played a part in the SCOTUS decision.





How do the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda not fall into either of those two categories?

Taliban do , Al Queada forces captured in Combat do...Taliban or Al Queada forces caught while engaged in terrorist acts do not....BUT if not killed in the field and CAPTURED (according to how I understand the Supreme court ) the simple act of capturing them and holding them under your controll affords them some protections under the Geneva convention..mostly under article four I believe. "They must be treated humanely " being mentioned specificaly in the decision .

Ignoring where you got that stat from, but if we're to accept it as true that means that out of the 505 prisoners still there, 152 of them are have done nothing wrong.
152 innocent ppl who have been held in a prison for 4 years now.

Does that give any rise to concern for you?

Mr Hamsters,

Both myself and bogmarsh (I believe) were taking a sarcastic/ironic view. We are concerned and that was the point.

p.s. Eyup fellow yorkshireman.

Morning!

Still going round in circles as predicted. The US still needs to define whether they are one thing or another and apply the appropriate process. They haven't. And now they have stuck themselves in a hole because whichever way it goes, they have broken all the rules.

In the lead up to the invasion of iraq, there was a lot of moralistic grandstanding as the excuses given for the invasion were knocked down one by one.

Here's how it played out in Britain:

Gov: He is helping Al-Qaeda
Media : Not true. We have a shedload of experts here to point out that their ideologies are opposed and al-qaeda actually hate Saddam.
Gov: OK then he has weapons of mass destruction
Saddam: I got rid of them
Gov: We have the receipts!!!!!!
UN: We can't find any.
Gov: OK then, we'll do it because Saddam is a bad man. He bombs iraqi civilians, arrests people, does not give them a fair trial and tortures them.

And look at how much has changed. That last Gov statement seems to ring a bell with respect to Guantanamo for some reason...... But justice has been brought to Iraq!

What a moral victory.

Add to that : it has been argued that the invasion of Iraq was in fact illegal in international law because the UN resolution used as justification was missing the key phrasing to authorise use of force - which would make all the invading forces "Illegal combatants". Wheras even al-qaeda members fighting the invasion in Iraq are clearly covered under the Geneva Conventions as "militias"

oops.

Morning!

Still going round in circles as predicted. The US still needs to define whether they are one thing or another and apply the appropriate process. They haven't. And now they have stuck themselves in a hole because whichever way it goes, they have broken all the rules.

In the lead up to the invasion of iraq, there was a lot of moralistic grandstanding as the excuses given for the invasion were knocked down one by one.

Here's how it played out in Britain:

Gov: He is helping Al-Qaeda
Media : Not true. We have a shedload of experts here to point out that their ideologies are opposed and al-qaeda actually hate Saddam.
Gov: OK then he has weapons of mass destruction
Saddam: I got rid of them
Gov: We have the receipts!!!!!!
UN: We can't find any.
Gov: OK then, we'll do it because Saddam is a bad man. He bombs iraqi civilians, arrests people, does not give them a fair trial and tortures them.

And look at how much has changed. That last Gov statement seems to ring a bell with respect to Guantanamo for some reason...... But justice has been brought to Iraq!

What a moral victory.

Add to that : it has been argued that the invasion of Iraq was in fact illegal in international law because the UN resolution used as justification was missing the key phrasing to authorise use of force - which would make all the invading forces "Illegal combatants". Wheras even al-qaeda members fighting the invasion in Iraq are clearly covered under the Geneva Conventions as "militias"

oops.
oops, indeed!! :)

The Supreme Court are obviously Communist Pinkoes and Far-Left Muslim Apologists. They're not patriotic enough and should be hung from the nearest lamppost using pig guts.

*Nods*

I don't know exactly what you understand as patriotic. But the Supreme Court and the the system of checks and balances is actually what your patriotism is supposed to be aimed at. The values and principles of the US constitution are what defines the patria. And it only fair that the Supreme Court clearly tells the president that he is not above the law and he does not have a blank check to do whatever he wants. The US is not yet a dictatorship.

Taliban do , Al Queada forces captured in Combat do...Taliban or Al Queada forces caught while engaged in terrorist acts do not....BUT if not killed in the field and CAPTURED (according to how I understand the Supreme court ) the simple act of capturing them and holding them under your controll affords them some protections under the Geneva convention..mostly under article four I believe. "They must be treated humanely " being mentioned specificaly in the decision .

You know, in all the chaos on the ground it is not so easy to determine who is actually a member of whatever terrorist group. Most detainees have not been captured "while engaged in terrorist acts". That is why courts are supposed to find out. And the US led military operation is not that well organized and surgical that the US forces always know who the attack. They shoot members of allied forces and visitors of wedding parties etc, you know. So how do they know who they have captured?

Of course they are. They are as protected as any other foreign criminal in the U.S. Why wouldn't they be?

Because they were picked up on foreign soil. Sorry but no. They aren't protected by US Law nor are they protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Correction: ...according to the portions of the Geneva Convention that the US is signatory to...

The Geneva Convention does indeed contain protections for fighters the US is defining as "illegal enemy combatants". We just refuse to acknowledge those protections.

BINGO!! In other words, they do not have protection. Thanks for proving it.

Except that they were mostly "detained" during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought those wars were over. At least thats what Dubya said, IIRC.

Those 2 wars are yes but not the war against Al Qaeda.

Well the supreme court has left that up to Congress..as it stands they can be held until hostilities cease and the supreme court has also just reafirmed that as captured combatants they must be treated humanely by under the treaty Congress approved called the geneva convention . If you read the constitution only CONGRESS has the right to make or abrogate a treaty .
The Excecutive branch cant operate as if a treaty doesnt exist and cant determine who is protected under the treaty..its up to Congress to determine that .

If the president shows any form of leadership he will ask Congress for what he needs to bring the prisoners to justice and he will get it . It would be suicidal for any member of Congress to be seen as NOT supporting bringing terrorist to justice , I wou;ld be suprised if the vote was not close to unamimouse for a form of military tribunal with congressional oversite .
In fact if these fellows had the brains they were born with still in working order...they should have already done this a year or two ago .

Until and unless a formal declaration of war is issued by the Congress of the United States the presidents powers as commander and chief are limited .

This is stuff they teach in six grade ...or used to ..:rolleyes:

I guess the guys who are running shit in Washington missed that class.


Actually, Congress doesn't need to do that.

There are two other avenues. One is the regular court martial, which is an already established and approved avenue (but unlike the special tribunals, subject to judicial review), and the other is the civilian court.

He could order regular court martials immediately.

When was war officially declared on Al-Queda?

I refer you to post 76.

(For the record I am not saying they should all be released, just that there should be some attempt to establish guilt of some kind. - in case the flamers pick up on this later)

I believe Bin Laden declared war on us in 1996. Since then, we've been at war with them.

*and hits head on ground*

Who is the USA officially at war with right now? No one.
They were at war with the Sadam Hussein regime in Iraq, but they are not at war with Iraq any more. (Or have they declared war on Iraq's new government without telling anyone?)

If they are prisoners of war they have to be released.

Why release them when we are still at war with Al Qaeda?

Why release them when we are still at war with Al Qaeda?

Shh... I think that people are unfamiliar with how "war" is done in the US now, through Congressional authorization, and not through official declarations of war.

Since the War Power Act, Congressional "authorization" has been the norm. This includes authorizations for the global war on terror.

As no declaraton of war has ever been made against al-qaeda, and as any such declaration would have no legal standing given that al-qaeda is not a sovereign nation, you may claim all you want that you are at war with them, but the detainees in Gt cannot be prisoners of war with respect to this.

Wrong yet again. Guess what? We didn't have to declare war on Al Qaeda for they declared war on us. This puts us into a state of war with them.

That al-qaeda are still fighting is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It is very relevent.

Oh, and the war in Afghanistan ended a long time ago. The problem that the US has is that it does not know how to handle the peace.

*dies of laughter*

They have to be released and repatriated if they are prisoners of war.

Nope since the war is still going on.

Why release them when we are still at war with Al Qaeda?

Because Al-Qaeda is not an entity with which you can be at war. It is not a nation or even a region of a nation. It is more than a little bit like saying you are at war with the Mafia. Good rhetoric - but meaningless. If these are Al-qaeda members then prosecute them for criminal activity - through the judicial system. If there is insufficient evidence to do this, then they should be released - or are you another one that figures that it is worth sacrificing all of the assurances that the criminal courts give against the abuse of power by the state just because one terrorist group is threatening the USA?

You don't have to bother, really. It doesn't matter what the EU demanded back in 2004 - what matters is whether or not the US chooses to adhere to international law now.

We have been adhering to international law.

Because Al-Qaeda is not an entity with which you can be at war. It is not a nation or even a region of a nation. It is more than a little bit like saying you are at war with the Mafia. Good rhetoric - but meaningless. If these are Al-qaeda members then prosecute them for criminal activity - through the judicial system. If there is insufficient evidence to do this, then they should be released - or are you another one that figures that it is worth sacrificing all of the assurances that the criminal courts give against the abuse of power by the state just because one terrorist group is threatening the USA?

If it idn't a Nation, its operatives are not entitled to any form of protection or defense.


Non patieris vivere...

The court ruled that the provisions must fall within the Geneva conventions. Did you not bother to read the full decision. Bush overstapped his bounds by trying to create an entirely new legal status. Therefor his use us umproper. Finally, the majority opinion states that they must have standards as set forth by the Geneva accord. Go back and read it please so we may have a debate on the same starting ground.

Did you read my opening post in this thread? I have accepted the decision though I do not agree with it.

We have been adhering to international law.

*collapses on the floor in hysterical laughter*

Obviously the SCOTUS know a little bit more about laws than you? :p

I guess you forgot the part where if we declared them POWs then we do not have to give them trials?

If it idn't a Nation, its operatives are not entitled to any form of protection or defense.


Non patieris vivere...

Another one that thinks that justice only applies to the citizens of the country. Wise up.

I guess you forgot the part where if we declared them POWs then we do not have to give them trials?

But you do have to release and repatriate them if you do this. (The US is not oficially at war with anyone right now - no matter how much you like to delude yourself that you are at war with a non sovereign organisation.)

Because Al-Qaeda is not an entity with which you can be at war. It is not a nation or even a region of a nation. It is more than a little bit like saying you are at war with the Mafia. Good rhetoric - but meaningless. If these are Al-qaeda members then prosecute them for criminal activity - through the judicial system. If there is insufficient evidence to do this, then they should be released - or are you another one that figures that it is worth sacrificing all of the assurances that the criminal courts give against the abuse of power by the state just because one terrorist group is threatening the USA?

According to the Geneva Conventions, and the recent Supreme Court ruling, this "judicial system" can be either military court martial or the civilian courts. President's choice. The ruling says that he can either choose those, or ask Congress for authority for the special tribunals he tried to create.

So, court martial. I have no problem with that.

*snipoo(

1) No armband
2) no uniform
3) no insignia at all

Yep they do not fall under it.

Another one that thinks that justice only applies to the citizens of the country. Wise up.

The right to use arms is limited to the properly regulated armed forces of nation states.
Those who attempt to usurp this right?
Simply wipe them out - to the last critter!

Non patieris vivere...

According to the Geneva Conventions, and the recent Supreme Court ruling, this "judicial system" can be either military court martial or the civilian courts. President's choice. The ruling says that he can either choose those, or ask Congress for authority for the special tribunals he tried to create.

So, court martial. I have no problem with that.

Nor do I. :)

The right to use arms is limited to the properly regulated armed forces of nation states.
Those who attempt to usurp this right?
Simply wipe them out - to the last critter!

Non patieris vivere...

Um, so you oppose the 2nd amendment then.

So wipe them out - all of the NRA. That is going to go down well.

Nor do I. :)

Keep in mind that in a military court martial, the penalty for being found to be a mercenary is death.

Foreign fighters (any non-Afghan captured under arms in Afghanistan) who can be proven to have received any pay from al-Qaeda could end up shot.

Um, so you oppose the 2nd amendment then.

So wipe them out - all of the NRA. That is going to go down well.


*grin* I already proposed something to that effect...
But that was another thread.

1) No armband
2) no uniform
3) no insignia at all

Yep they do not fall under it.

Go study the convention - they do. Any person that takes up arms in defense of their home is covered. No need for uniform, armbands, insignia - nothing.

Go study the convention - they do. Any person that takes up arms in defense of their home is covered. No need for uniform, armbands, insignia - nothing.


A swedish citizen defending his home in... Afghanistan?

I want to see a Habitual Residency Test applied to that one!

*giggles*

Go study the convention - they do. Any person that takes up arms in defense of their home is covered. No need for uniform, armbands, insignia - nothing.

That doesn't cover foreigners fighting in Afghanistan for the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Covers the locals only.

The US is not a signatory to the Protocols that may, in some cases, protect foreigners fighting there.

Hence the international confusion.

Keep in mind that in a military court martial, the penalty for being found to be a mercenary is death.

Foreign fighters (any non-Afghan captured under arms in Afghanistan) who can be proven to have received any pay from al-Qaeda could end up shot.

The issue here is that they are being presumed guilty and held without trial for years. If they are mercenaries then maybe they deserve to be shot. That is a completely different issue.

To hold someone, without giving them the right to defend themselves in a fair and open court is wrong. That is my problem with gt.

Shh... I think that people are unfamiliar with how "war" is done in the US now, through Congressional authorization, and not through official declarations of war.

Since the War Power Act, Congressional "authorization" has been the norm. This includes authorizations for the global war on terror.

That is indeed true. We haven't "declared war" since 1941. Since then...it has all been done by congressional authorization.

Because Al-Qaeda is not an entity with which you can be at war.

I would love for you to explain Al Qaeda's declaration of war on us then. Go on. I would love to hear it.

*collapses on the floor in hysterical laughter*

We have been following international law.

A swedish citizen defending his home in... Afghanistan?

I want to see a Habitual Residency Test applied to that one!

*giggles*

Pick and choose as you wish. Give the guy a trial/court martial - see what happens. If he is there as a mercenary, and this is proven, then shoot the bastard. If he is not, and he is wrongly accused, then compensate him for your mistake and let him go.

What do you have to lose?

But you do have to release and repatriate them if you do this. (The US is not oficially at war with anyone right now - no matter how much you like to delude yourself that you are at war with a non sovereign organisation.)

Sorry but no we don't since we are in a STATE OF WAR AGAINST AL QAEDA! What part of that is not sinking in?

Um, so you oppose the 2nd amendment then.

So wipe them out - all of the NRA. That is going to go down well.

They aren't attacking the United States Government. They are not at war with the US Government.

I would love for you to explain Al Qaeda's declaration of war on us then. Go on. I would love to hear it.

Al qaeda can say what the hell it likes. It does not mean that you are at war with them. It just means that they are delusional. Or do you take them seriously about war.

Where are they, where is their government, what other nations have recognised them as a nation.

Come on Corny - stop plucking at straws here.

They aren't attacking the United States Government. They are not at war with the US Government.

They are non military weapon users. Destroy them.

Al qaeda are not attacking the US government - they are attacking the ideals of the US.

The issue here is that they are being presumed guilty and held without trial for years. If they are mercenaries then maybe they deserve to be shot. That is a completely different issue.

To hold someone, without giving them the right to defend themselves in a fair and open court is wrong. That is my problem with gt.

Actually, the Conventions state (and the Supreme Court agrees) that a status hearing is required only in circumstances of doubt. A status hearing determines whether or not you're a prisoner of war, or an uninvolved unarmed civilian, or a spy, mercenary, or saboteur.

There is no doubt about native Afghans who claim to belong to the Taliban. Automatic prisoner of war status, no status hearing, no trial. Indefinite detention, since the Taliban have not surrendered.

For foreign fighters (al-Qaeda), you need a status hearing.

Which then turns you over to a military court martial if you're thought to be a spy, saboteur, or mercenary. If you were captured under arms, but not paid, you get to be a prisoner of war. The first three get shot after conviction in a court martial.

Uninvolved, unarmed civilians are released (we've already released a majority of the inmates).

We have a handful of inmates there whom the military already regards as uninvolved, unarmed civilians. The problem is, no country in the world will take them, not even their home country.

Tell me, what do we do with the ones we find innocent, whom no one will take back?

Go study the convention - they do. Any person that takes up arms in defense of their home is covered. No need for uniform, armbands, insignia - nothing.

Sorry but no. I guess then that the French Resistance should've been given fair trials? Guess what? They were executed.

They are non military weapon users. Destroy them.

Al qaeda are not attacking the US government - they are attacking the ideals of the US.

All the more reason to prosecute the war with vigor, relentlessness and ruthlessness.

We have been adhering to international law.
Not really, no...
It's old news, but I'll dig it up.

We were admonished repeatedly by the EU to grant them prisoner of war status immediately after we opened Guantanamo.
Did you find the link?

Pick and choose as you wish. Give the guy a trial/court martial - see what happens. If he is there as a mercenary, and this is proven, then shoot the bastard. If he is not, and he is wrongly accused, then compensate him for your mistake and let him go.

What do you have to lose?

Unless I can guarantee a 100% succes-rate ( as in: sending each and every Jihadist to Hell ) through trials, I'm taking no chances at all.

This opposition must be annihilated, no matter what it takes.

EDIT: If I do trials, they'll be Star Chamber style.

Al qaeda can say what the hell it likes. It does not mean that you are at war with them. It just means that they are delusional. Or do you take them seriously about war.

It does mean we are at war with them. When one side declares war on another, it doesn't matter if the other side declares it or not. A state of war exists. Period. This is simple international affairs here. We didn't have to declare war on Japan for we were already at war legally at 7:55 AM December 7, 1941.

Where are they, where is their government, what other nations have recognised them as a nation.

You are thinking in old terms. Welcome to a new world AB Again. Their government is in hiding either in Pakistan or still in Afghanistan.

Come on Corny - stop plucking at straws here.

I'm not.

They are non military weapon users. Destroy them.

You forgot about the 2nd amendment.

Al qaeda are not attacking the US government - they are attacking the ideals of the US.

I think the attack on the pentagon (a legit attack btw) is an attack against the government.

Not really, no...

Did you find the link?
A lot of the news stories are in paid archives, so nothing public and free yet.

A lot of the news stories are in paid archives, so nothing public and free yet.
Well let me know if you do. I haven't found anything yet either, but I wouldn't mind seeing whether or not the EU has interpreted international law incorrectly ;)

Well let me know if you do. I haven't found anything yet either, but I wouldn't mind seeing whether or not the EU has interpreted international law incorrectly ;)

So far just the major NGOs... but that's because they have their own websites.

1) No armband
2) no uniform
3) no insignia at all

Yep they do not fall under it.
*sigh*
Read it again:

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:

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Where exactly does it say you need to have armbands, uniforms and/or insgnias to be declared pows?
Where?

*sigh*
Read it again:
.

Where exactly does it say you need to have armbands, uniforms and/or insgnias to be declared pows?
Where?


respect the laws and customs of war...

Enough of this banter.
Hang 'em, and notify the Courts later.
That is what Admiral St Jervis did!

*sigh*
Read it again:
.

Where exactly does it say you need to have armbands, uniforms and/or insgnias to be declared pows?
Where?

In other portions of the Conventions. Remember that the US is not a signatory to portions of the Conventions, especially those dealing with irregular forces (additional Protocols).

Even with the part you just showed, any foreigners in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting for the insurgency are not covered, as they are not true citizens of that nation. If they were paid at all for their work, they could easily be considered mercenaries, and not subject to the protection of the Conventions at all.

*sigh*
Read it again:
.

Where exactly does it say you need to have armbands, uniforms and/or insgnias to be declared pows?
Where?

Because that is what is specified in the Geneva Convention.

Because that is what is specified in the Geneva Convention.
Oh for god's sake!
I just quoted you (yet again) the Geneva convention that clearly states that a pow is anyone who takes up arms against an invading force?
How many times do I need to post it before you read the bloody thing?

Please read it before you post again.

Oh for god's sake!
I just quoted you (yet again) the Geneva convention that clearly states that a pow is anyone who takes up arms against an invading force?
How many times do I need to post it before you read the bloody thing?

Please read it before you post again.

Did you read what Deep Kimichi wrote? No? thought not.

Oh for god's sake!
I just quoted you (yet again) the Geneva convention that clearly states that a pow is anyone who takes up arms against an invading force?
How many times do I need to post it before you read the bloody thing?

Please read it before you post again.

Actually, it says that any person who actually is a resident of that country. Foreigners don't count.

Oh for god's sake!
I just quoted you (yet again) the Geneva convention that clearly states that a pow is anyone who takes up arms against an invading force?
How many times do I need to post it before you read the bloody thing?

Please read it before you post again.

Deep Kimchi has more credibility over him than anything you could post, sorry. Get used to it

Deep Kimchi has more credibility over him than anything you could post, sorry. Get used to it
Based on what? The fact you agree with his opinion and politics and that he likes guns?


Actually, it says that any person who actually is a resident of that country. Foreigners don't count.
So Americans captured during the World Wars, Vietnam, and Korea wern't actually PoWs?

Oh for god's sake!
I just quoted you (yet again) the Geneva convention that clearly states that a pow is anyone who takes up arms against an invading force?
How many times do I need to post it before you read the bloody thing?

Please read it before you post again.

To be recognized as such, the armed forces of a Party to a conflict must be organized and placed under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or other authority not recognized by the adverse Party. In addition, these armed forces must be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, enforces compliance with the rules of internationallaw applicable in armed conflicts. In particular, this compliance requires combatants to distinguish themselves from civilians, except in particular circumstances (see point c below) by a uniform or other distinctive sign, visible and recognizable at a distance, while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Violation by a combatant of the rules applicable in armed conflict is punishable but if this combatant at least carries his arms openly during the engagement, he is not deprived of his right to the status of prisoner of war in case of capture. If the Party to which these armed forces belong omits or deliberately refuses to enforce compliance with these rules, it can result in all members of these forces losing their status of combatant and prisoner of war.

Link: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList104/046E2225AA0CE99DC1256B6600595193

If you are not wearing any uniform or insignia or armband to distinguish yourself from an ordinary civilian, you are not afforded protection by the Geneva Conventions. Nor are you protected if a state government does not claim that you are an official armed force of that government.

So Americans captured during the World Wars, Vietnam, and Korea wern't actually PoWs?

They were because they were *gasp* IN UNIFORM of an ACTUAL NATION.

In other portions of the Conventions. Remember that the US is not a signatory to portions of the Conventions, especially those dealing with irregular forces (additional Protocols).

Even with the part you just showed, any foreigners in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting for the insurgency are not covered, as they are not true citizens of that nation. If they were paid at all for their work, they could easily be considered mercenaries, and not subject to the protection of the Conventions at all.
Yet I assume the US is a signatory to this part (section 4) of the convention. Unless the other portions over-ride this section I still can't see how they can't declare them pows based on the fact they weren't in uniform.

The foreigners bit is a bit tricky. 4.6 just says 'inhabitants', not citizens. So one could argue than anyone living there at the time of the invasion who fights is covered.
I for one am not a citizen of Hong Kong, but having lived here for close to 2 years consider myself (as I feel most anyone would) an inhabitant.

Proving they were paid is another matter entirely. One best left to the courts to decide. As is everything else.
Though of course most of them weren't, happy enough to do for free what they saw as Allah's will. So the mercenary point prob wouldn't apply to many of them at any rate.
Unless you can prove in a court that being promised 72 virgins in Heaven constitutes a future payment, thus making them mercenaries...

Link: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList104/046E2225AA0CE99DC1256B6600595193

If you are not wearing any uniform or insignia or armband to distinguish yourself from an ordinary civilian, you are not afforded protection by the Geneva Conventions.
Read point c. The exception is if arms are carried openly during an engagement.

Deep Kimchi has more credibility over him than anything you could post, sorry. Get used to it
And more credibility over the Geneva Convention?
My, how you honour the man.

Read point c. The exception is if arms are carried openly during an engagement.

That only applies to natives of the country being invaded. It doesn't apply to foreigners. Please read the Conventions.

Read point c. The exception is if arms are carried openly during an engagement.


Did those guys who claim to be innocent openly wear arms during an engagement?

And more credibility over the Geneva Convention?
My, how you honour the man.
I'm using your quote from the Convention.

It applies only to native residents of the country, not to foreigners in that country who take up arms.

They can be, as the result of a status hearing, classified as mercenaries.

And mercenaries are explicitly not covered by the Conventions.

This means that while Taliban can automatically get prisoner of war status (and get no trial, and be held until the Taliban officially surrenders), the foreign al-Qaeda fighters who were in Afghanistan have to get a status hearing to determine whether they were mercenaries or civilians.

If they were captured unarmed, they are civilians. If they were captured under arms, they could be considered mercenaries.

The Supreme Court says that the status hearings have to be in a regular judicial venue, such as a court martial or civilian court - one subject to their judicial review and not an extrajudicial court made up on the spot.

Is it just me or is everyone just looking for excuses to quietly murder anyone they don't like?

I don't really care if they are technically subject to the geneva conventions or not. Just have a process and stick to it.

And don't try and claim the moral high ground if you have no more just process than the opposition.

And the geneva conventions would only apply to those who acted against the invasion as opposed to people just picked up from jails, happened to be passing etc.

It would command a lot more respect if all these prisoners were treated according to the geneva conventions whether or not they were subject to it.

Link: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList104/046E2225AA0CE99DC1256B6600595193

If you are not wearing any uniform or insignia or armband to distinguish yourself from an ordinary civilian, you are not afforded protection by the Geneva Conventions. Nor are you protected if a state government does not claim that you are an official armed force of that government.
If you read further, you would have read point c, exceptional cases:
c) In exceptional cases, when required by the nature of the hostilities, a combatant can be released from the obligation to distinguish himself from the civilian population by wearing a uniform or distinctive sign recognizable at a distance during military operations. However, in such situations, these combatants must distinguish themselves by carrying arms openly during the engagement and during such time as they are visible to the adversary while engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which they are to participate.
Says as long as you're seen carrying a gun, you don't need to wear a uniform.

And then under that section, there's this one:

To avoid uncertainty and prevent any arbitrary measures at the time of capture, the Protocol specifies that any person taking part in hostilities and captured is presumed to be a prisoner of war and is treated as a prisoner of war, even in case of doubt as to his status. In the latter case, the question will be decided by a tribunal at a later date.
Mind explaining how the US can wriggle out of this clause?

Is it just me or is everyone just looking for excuses to quietly murder anyone they don't like?

I don't really care if they are technically subject to the geneva conventions or not. Just have a process and stick to it.

And don't try and claim the moral high ground if you have no more just process than the opposition.

And the geneva conventions would only apply to those who acted against the invasion as opposed to people just picked up from jails, happened to be passing etc.

It would command a lot more respect if all these prisoners were treated according to the geneva conventions whether or not they were subject to it.


Well, if we treat them according to the Conventions, we have to classify them.

So, as I said, Taliban can be automatically considered prisoners of war - no problem, we just detain them until the remaining Taliban surrender officially.

As for the remainder, foreign fighters can't be classified as unarmed civilians or local insurgents. Unarmed civilians get released, and local insurgents are prisoners of war. Foreign fighters usually, after a status hearing, get classified as mercenaries. Under the Geneva Conventions.

After the status hearing (which has to be a regular court, such as a court martial using the rules of the UCMJ, or a civilian court), mercenaries can be tried and executed.

That's if we treat them EXACTLY according to the Conventions.

If you read further, you would have read point c, exceptional cases:

Says as long as you're seen carrying a gun, you don't need to wear a uniform.

And then under that section, there's this one:


Mind explaining how the US can wriggle out of this clause?


Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

So any foreign fighter who fought on behalf of the Taliban, whether or not they were wearing a uniform, if captured under arms, fall into this category.

I'm using your quote from the Convention.

It applies only to native residents of the country, not to foreigners in that country who take up arms.
As I mentioned before, the section only refers to inhabitants, not native residents. I'm an inhabitant of Hong Kong. You've been an inhabitant of England. Yet neither of us are native residents of those places.
Deciding exactly what the convention means by inhabitants is up to ppl just a tad more qualified in law than anyone here.
But my feeling is that if they meant only native residents/citizens, they would have said that.

Based on what? The fact you agree with his opinion and politics and that he likes guns?

Ehrm, lad...

I do not agree with Deep Kimchi in almost nothing, with the exception that he is against Chávez as I am, and even then for entirely different reasons.

I loathe guns, Deep Kimchi loves them. We had quite a clash in those threads about gun control some time ago. Although I can recognize that he can debate, and expose his arguments in a serious, logical, rational way.

My phrase was entirely sarcastic, mocking Cornelius, but you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, right?

Same goes for Demented Hamsters.

I am actually siding with the position of closing Guantánamo, and agreeing with the decision of the Supreme Court(I don't know why americans get pissed by people callling them USians and put names in everything else, like that infamous "Gitmo")

Well, if we treat them according to the Conventions, we have to classify them.

So, as I said, Taliban can be automatically considered prisoners of war - no problem, we just detain them until the remaining Taliban surrender officially.

As for the remainder, foreign fighters can't be classified as unarmed civilians or local insurgents. Unarmed civilians get released, and local insurgents are prisoners of war. Foreign fighters usually, after a status hearing, get classified as mercenaries. Under the Geneva Conventions.

After the status hearing (which has to be a regular court, such as a court martial using the rules of the UCMJ, or a civilian court), mercenaries can be tried and executed.

That's if we treat them EXACTLY according to the Conventions.

Its a process. It'll do.

As I mentioned before, the section only refers to inhabitants, not native residents. I'm an inhabitant of Hong Kong. You've been an inhabitant of England. Yet neither of us are native residents of those places.
Deciding exactly what the convention means by inhabitants is up to ppl just a tad more qualified in law than anyone here.
But my feeling is that if they meant only native residents/citizens, they would have said that.

That's what the section on mercenaries is about, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in there.

There's a residency requirement.

As I mentioned before, the section only refers to inhabitants, not native residents. I'm an inhabitant of Hong Kong. You've been an inhabitant of England. Yet neither of us are native residents of those places.
Deciding exactly what the convention means by inhabitants is up to ppl just a tad more qualified in law than anyone here.
But my feeling is that if they meant only native residents/citizens, they would have said that.

Also, I was advised by Immigration that I was not an inhabitant of the UK. I was a "visitor".

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

So any foreign fighter who fought on behalf of the Taliban, whether or not they were wearing a uniform, if captured under arms, fall into this category.

That could be a problem. Material compensation. I didn't know Al-Qaeda were salaried.

That could be a problem. Material compensation. I didn't know Al-Qaeda were salaried.

Who said it had to be in money?

Who said it had to be in money?

Not me.

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

So any foreign fighter who fought on behalf of the Taliban, whether or not they were wearing a uniform, if captured under arms, fall into this category.
But first you have to prove that. Hence the section I quoted that says they're pows until a tribunal decides.

Does the definition of a mercenary need to fill all those criteria? Because if so, what of foreigners who volunteered to fight and received no payment (part c)? You can hardly be called a mercenary if you fight for no payment, can you?
And remember a lot of these ppl were fighting a jihad. So they thought of nothing more than a trip to Heaven as their only payment.

Does the definition of a mercenary need to fill all those criteria?.


[b] to the conflict; and (f) has not been


Yes. Note the "and" before the final point.

I'm happy they are trying to reign in this madman who has ran away with my country. He needs to be impeached and tried for crimes against humanity . I am sad however that congress voted to end freedom of the press by saying that any information they get reguarding the government has to be approved before it can be published :upyours:. hopefully a democrat will fix this problem. I cant wait till the nov 6 elections. if that doesnt help fix whats wrong with this country hopefully something will :sniper: :mp5: who knows what it will take anymore :headbang:

But first you have to prove that. Hence the section I quoted that says they're pows until a tribunal decides.

Don't have a problem with that. The Supreme Court says that such a tribunal can be a UCMJ court martial, a civilian trial, or a special tribunal (if Congress authorizes it).

Does the definition of a mercenary need to fill all those criteria? Because if so, what of foreigners who volunteered to fight and received no payment (part c)? You can hardly be called a mercenary if you fight for no payment, can you?
And remember a lot of these ppl were fighting a jihad. So they thought of nothing more than a trip to Heaven as their only payment.[/QUOTE]

Apparently, most of the foreign fighters received a stipend.

Afghans during the reign of the Taliban noted that the foreign fighters had money and luxuries that no local Afghan had (clothing, vehicles, etc).

Wouldn't be hard.

Don't have a problem with that. The Supreme Court says that such a tribunal can be a UCMJ court martial, a civilian trial, or a special tribunal (if Congress authorizes it).

Does the definition of a mercenary need to fill all those criteria? Because if so, what of foreigners who volunteered to fight and received no payment (part c)? You can hardly be called a mercenary if you fight for no payment, can you?
And remember a lot of these ppl were fighting a jihad. So they thought of nothing more than a trip to Heaven as their only payment.

Apparently, most of the foreign fighters received a stipend.

Afghans during the reign of the Taliban noted that the foreign fighters had money and luxuries that no local Afghan had (clothing, vehicles, etc).

Wouldn't be hard.[/QUOTE]

So long as you can demonstrate it for these ones and they received them as payment for services rather than bought independently using private funds.

However, the standard of living in most of the countries of origin of most of these people is considerably higher than in afghanistan.

So having a pair of 501s and a land rover is not exactly proof of being a merc.

Might be more interesting to read the decision and then comment.

It might mean that the people in Gitmo stay there indefinitely - until the end of the conflict, unless the Supreme Court mentioned something about that in their decision.


They should stay there. I'm sure that if they weren't terrorist before being held they will be now after their imprisoment. We have no choice now but to keep them there until they die.

Apparently, most of the foreign fighters received a stipend.

Afghans during the reign of the Taliban noted that the foreign fighters had money and luxuries that no local Afghan had (clothing, vehicles, etc).

Wouldn't be hard.

So long as you can demonstrate it for these ones and they received them as payment for services rather than bought independently using private funds.

However, the standard of living in most of the countries of origin of most of these people is considerably higher than in afghanistan.

So having a pair of 501s and a land rover is not exactly proof of being a merc.[/QUOTE]


Like I said, I have no problem with a status hearing under UCMJ rules.

And I have no problem with turning the ones who are not mercenaries into "prisoners of war".

So it looks like, if we follow the Conventions, we have four categories that come out.

1. Unarmed civilians not captured under arms. Free to go (but the problem of no nation taking them still remains).
2. Natives of Afghanistan captured under arms - prisoner of war until the Taliban surrender.
3. Foreign fighters who were not paid and were captured under arms - prisoner of war until the Taliban surrender.
4. Foreign fighters who were paid - an additional trial on the charge of being a mercenary, and if found not guilty, they become prisoners of war - if guilty, they are shot.

They should stay there. I'm sure that if they weren't terrorist before being held they will be now after their imprisoment. We have no choice now but to keep them there until they die.
We've already released hundreds, and of those, only a couple went back to be terrorists. Of those, they seem to have been terrorists before (with one exception).

Can't hold someone who was not captured under arms, unless you catch them in the act of espionage or the act of sabotage.

Apparently, most of the foreign fighters received a stipend.

Afghans during the reign of the Taliban noted that the foreign fighters had money and luxuries that no local Afghan had (clothing, vehicles, etc).

Wouldn't be hard.

So long as you can demonstrate it for these ones and they received them as payment for services rather than bought independently using private funds.

However, the standard of living in most of the countries of origin of most of these people is considerably higher than in afghanistan.

So having a pair of 501s and a land rover is not exactly proof of being a merc.

Not having a proper job in Afghanistan, yet not starving, however, is...
;)

My mum doesn't consider "soldier" as a "proper job".

Oh dear....

They were because they were *gasp* IN UNIFORM of an ACTUAL NATION.

So if you make them take the uniform off at gunpoint before you capture them...

They're not prisoners of war!

So if you make them take the uniform off at gunpoint before you capture them...

They're not prisoners of war!

Unfortunately....that is illegal.

So if you make them take the uniform off at gunpoint before you capture them...

They're not prisoners of war!
oh please, you know there was no uniform in the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

Like I said, I have no problem with a status hearing under UCMJ rules.

And I have no problem with turning the ones who are not mercenaries into "prisoners of war".

So it looks like, if we follow the Conventions, we have four categories that come out.

1. Unarmed civilians not captured under arms. Free to go (but the problem of no nation taking them still remains).
2. Natives of Afghanistan captured under arms - prisoner of war until the Taliban surrender.
3. Foreign fighters who were not paid and were captured under arms - prisoner of war until the Taliban surrender.
4. Foreign fighters who were paid - an additional trial on the charge of being a mercenary, and if found not guilty, they become prisoners of war - if guilty, they are shot.

OK sounds like a solution. Hot damn, I reached a concensus with Kimchi.

Apart from the shooting but we'll leave that aside for another debate.

Now then, has it occurred to anyone that this might encourage the taliban to surrender? All they have to look forward to at the moment is being banged up in a foreign detention camp where rumours of prisoner abuse are rife and where prisoners have no rights whatsoever.

Surrender now, war's over, We can all go home.

Can't see it happening before november tho.

OK sounds like a solution. Hot damn, I reached a concensus with Kimchi.

Apart from the shooting but we'll leave that aside for another debate.

Now then, has it occurred to anyone that this might encourage the taliban to surrender? All they have to look forward to at the moment is being banged up in a foreign detention camp where rumours of prisoner abuse are rife and where prisoners have no rights whatsoever.

Surrender now, war's over, We can all go home.

Can't see it happening before november tho.

They probably look forward to the day when they either meet 72 virgins, or they watch the US lose its resolve and give Afghanistan back to them by default.

oh please, you know there was no uniform in the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

Who says that would only apply to Taliban or al-Qaeda? It could apply to any armed organization who should be protected by the Geneva convention, as it appears that the only thing that matters is the uniform.

Unfortunately....that is illegal.

Really? Show me the law where it says you cannot force an enemy to remove their uniform at gunpoint?

Really? Show me the law where it says you cannot force an enemy to remove their uniform at gunpoint?

They were captured in Uniform. Once they are captured while in uniform...under International Law, they are POWs.

They were captured in Uniform. Once they are captured while in uniform...under International Law, they are POWs.

But at what point are they considered captured?

Just think, the US could invade Canada and ship their entire military to Guantanamo Bay, and then deny everything! Since the only people who fought against them were 'terrorists', how could anyone prove anything?

But at what point are they considered captured?

When they surrendered.

But at what point are they considered captured?

Just think, the US could invade Canada and ship their entire military to Guantanamo Bay, and then deny everything! Since the only people who fought against them were 'terrorists', how could anyone prove anything?

Nuffin!

;) So, as long as you win, you can do as you please!

Survival of the fittest is unassailable Natural Law.

When they surrendered.

Well simply say that they took their uniforms off before they surrendered. After all, who's word counts for more? A filthy Canadian terrorist or a brave, noble, American serviceman?