NationStates Jolt Archive

They didn't really have much of a choice, not if they wanted to at least act like they still give a crap about what the Supreme Court has to say (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12detain.html?hp&ex=1152763200&en=1099effbec671271&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

But the White House acknowledgment on Tuesday that a key clause of the Geneva Conventions applies to Qaeda detainees, as a recent Supreme Court ruling affirmed, is only the latest step in the gradual erosion of the administration’s aggressive legal stance.

The administration’s initial position emerged in 2002 only after a fierce internal legal debate, and it has been revised in the face of international opinion, Congressional curbs and Supreme Court rulings. Two central ideas of the war on terror — that the president could fight it exclusively on the basis of his constitutional powers and that terrorist suspects had few, if any, rights — have been modified repeatedly.

Scholars debated the meaning of a Defense Department memo made public on Tuesday that declared that the clause in the Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3, “applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda.”

Administration officials suggested that the memo only restated what was already policy — that detainees must be treated “humanely.” But what was undeniable was that the president’s executive order of Feb. 7, 2002, declared that Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or to Taliban detainees, and that the newly released memo, written by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, said it did.

Now, how long will it be, and how many times will we have to repost this link, before Bush apologists and Gitmo lovers finally accept that the detainees are covered by the Geneva Conventions? I'm putting my over/under at about 200 million, given the fact that some of them are still claiming that we found WMD in Iraq.

Looks like his ratings are gonna drop more....

A win for basic human rights!
*pumps fist*

My bet would be that they'll pretend that this is no change at all, as if they've been saying the same thing the whole time...

Still trying to figure out how a group of terrorist that aren't a uniformed army, and not a part of a nation or Nationstate army fall under the Geneva Convention.

My bet would be that they'll pretend that this is no change at all, as if they've been saying the same thing the whole time...
The last paragraph of what I quoted hints at that, but the article points out that their claim doesn't hold water.

The last paragraph of what I quoted hints at that, but the article points out that their claim doesn't hold water.
They've never bothered making sure that their arguments held water in the past, just repeat it often enough. But below me, it looks like your right, one already.

I'll posit a theory. Perhaps the Bush Administration really came into office wanting to be a nice, friendly Presidency. And they started off on their path towards pleasant mediocrity. At which point the attacks of September Eleventh happened. In a massive bout of groupthink, everyone suddenly became hawkish, and constantly decided to try to one-up each other for the next five years. Until they realized what they were doing, sometime in the middle of last month. And decided to cool down.

I know, probably a bit wishful on my part.

I'll posit a theory. Perhaps the Bush Administration really came into office wanting to be a nice, friendly Presidency. And they started off on their path towards pleasant mediocrity. At which point the attacks of September Eleventh happened. In a massive bout of groupthink, everyone suddenly became hawkish, and constantly decided to try to one-up each other for the next five years. Until they realized what they were doing, sometime in the middle of last month. And decided to cool down.

I know, probably a bit wishful on my part.
Yeah, especially since lots of people formerly part of the administration have already come out and said that they had war on their minds from the day they set foot in the door.

Looks like his ratings are gonna drop more....
Don't worry. Maybe he'll kick a baby down a flight of stairs.

How are terrorist protected by the Geneva Convention? The Geneva Convention applies to a standing, uniformed army that is part of a nation or nationstate. Islamic Terrorist does not fall under this.

How are terrorist protected by the Geneva Convention? The Geneva Convention applies to a standing, uniformed army that is part of a nation or nationstate. Islamic Terrorist does not fall under this.
Well, there's that little clause that states that if one is a signatory to the Conventions (which the US is), one has to abide by it, even if the person you're fighting is not.

Still trying to figure out how a group of terrorist that aren't a uniformed army, and not a part of a nation or Nationstate army fall under the Geneva Convention.

How are terrorist protected by the Geneva Convention? The Geneva Convention applies to a standing, uniformed army that is part of a nation or nationstate. Islamic Terrorist does not fall under this.

1) Not all the prisoners held at Guantanamo are terrorrists.

2) The 3rd Protocol defines POWs as:

Art 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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

3) The article in question covers everyone who isn't taking an active role in combat.

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument

(And for those who have difficulty understanding, note that the clause stating it includes members of the armed forces does not mean it excludes others.)

How are terrorist protected by the Geneva Convention? The Geneva Convention applies to a standing, uniformed army that is part of a nation or nationstate. Islamic Terrorist does not fall under this.
So sayeth the man who has obviously never read the Geneva convention.

Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

I don't see nor regular armed forces...

They didn't really have much of a choice, not if they wanted to at least act like they still give a crap about what the Supreme Court has to say (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12detain.html?hp&ex=1152763200&en=1099effbec671271&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

Yeah, I really would have preferred that the Administration took the Andrew Jackson approach to the USSC decision. Of course, the Andrew Jackson approach to terrorist removal wouldn't be so bad either.

Yeah, I really would have preferred that the Administration took the Andrew Jackson approach to the USSC decision. Of course, the Andrew Jackson approach to terrorist removal wouldn't be so bad either.It would give fuel to all the conspiracy theorists that the US is turning into a fascist dictatorship. Of course, no one would believe them anyway, even if what they were saying was true.

...the Andrew Jackson approach to terrorist removal wouldn't be so bad either.What, infect them with smallpox? :rolleyes:

What, infect them with smallpox? :rolleyes:
Nope, march them to Oklahoma.

That's... interesting.

It has already been shown that many of the people in Gitmo are innocent. Yet the Right calls for them not to be judged. Ever.

I wonder what would happen if the mothers of these people were going through this.

your approval ratings will hit 0 one day, bush.

Nope, march them to Oklahoma.Ah, steal the land of peaceful peoples, (who btw were cooperating with the government) redefine them as terrorists, force them out of their homes without care or concern about the time of year or whether they had sufficient provisions to survive the journey. Thus ensuring a high death toll.*

I'd hazard, our policies toward the peoples of the Middle East are amazingly similar.


*Oh, and Jackson did purposefully withhold smallpox treatment from Native Americans, so I'm sure using biological weapons would come under your approved list of actions.

I don't see nor regular armed forces...

Emboldened for you:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

or, if you prefer:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities... placed hors de combat by... detention... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...

Emboldened for you:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

or, if you prefer:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities... placed hors de combat by... detention... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...


I'd say that anyone, and I repeat, ANYONE! - who comes alllll the way from Sweden to Taliban-land! - is already taking active part in the conflict.

I'd say that anyone, and I repeat, ANYONE! - who comes alllll the way from Sweden to Taliban-land! - is already taking active part in the conflict.

Quite possibly, but once they have been removed from the hostilities by imprisonment, they are doing so no longer. Was it the phrase hors de combat that you didn't understand?

Quite possibly, but once they have been removed from the hostilities by imprisonment, they are doing so no longer. Was it the phrase hors de combat that you didn't understand?


The part where the horse-shit takes place before the last Jihadi has danced at the end of a rope.

I don't see nor regular armed forces...

He didn't pay as much attention to the really key bit...

(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.

im not saying this to be mean but who really gives a flying fuck i dont, i hate the son of a bitch

He didn't pay as much attention to the really key bit...


Islamist 'Swedes' being spontaneous in... Afghanistan? riiight!

(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.

The problem with this is that the people captured were generally not following the customs of war.

The part where the horse-shit takes place before the last Jihadi has danced at the end of a rope.

???

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really understand that sentence.

What horse-shit?

your approval ratings will hit 0 one day, bush.

Nah. Never gonna happen. Remember, you can still find people who think Hitler was a genius. Best you can hope for is for them to become fractional.

So, basically, once they are removed from combat, they are no longer actively participating and are thus subject to Geneva convention dictates? See, that was what confused me from both sides; I couldn't figure out what either was getting at.

He didn't pay as much attention to the really key bit...
Nor to this one either:
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
So, when has that yet to happen?

There's also this bit, further down:
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.
Which prob worries the Bush Admin more than a tad, I bet.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

They were found to not be covered by the convention by a competent tribunal. Bush set himself up as that tribunal and made the decision.

They were found to not be covered by the convention by a competent tribunal. Bush set himself up as that tribunal and made the decision.

I'm having trouble equating Bush with the word competent.

Besides, isn't having national leaders pervert law and pass judgment on legal cases by self appointing themselves the usual acts of a dictator?

I'm having trouble equating Bush with the word competent.

Besides, isn't having national leaders pervert law and pass judgment on legal cases by self appointing themselves the usual acts of a dictator?

Perhaps but I have seen nothing in the convention to define what a competent tribunal is.

1) Not all the prisoners held at Guantanamo are terrorrists.

2) The 3rd Protocol defines POWs as:

3) The article in question covers everyone who isn't taking an active role in combat.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument

(And for those who have difficulty understanding, note that the clause stating it includes members of the armed forces does not mean it excludes others.)
Why is it that I find myself agreeing more often than not with your posts lately....either you have changed, I have changed, or we both have changed?

Or, perhaps I am paying more attention to exactly what you have posted? :D

They were found to not be covered by the convention by a competent tribunal. Bush set himself up as that tribunal and made the decision.

Wasn't the SCOTUS decision an invalidation of Bush's authority to do just that?

Wasn't the SCOTUS decision an invalidation of Bush's authority to do just that?

I don't know, I never read the whole decision. Give me a minute to read it and I'll let you know.

Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
I don't see nor regular armed forces...

Taliban forces, anyone?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really understand that sentence.

What horse-shit?

Not just you. And the horse-shit appears to be Bogs...

So, basically, once they are removed from combat, they are no longer actively participating and are thus subject to Geneva convention dictates? See, that was what confused me from both sides; I couldn't figure out what either was getting at.

Yes, more or less. It's a bit more complicated than that, but you've got the key point - once a fighter's held in "enemy" hands, the GWPs apply. There may be questions as to which protocal applies. That's what the tribunals are supposed to decide.

Which prob worries the Bush Admin more than a tad, I bet.

It was one of the key reasons why Alberto Gonzales wrote his legal opinion advising Bush to not apply the GWPs. As these protocols are now considered to apply, administration officials have oppened themselves up to both domestic and international criminal charges....

Why is it that I find myself agreeing more often than not with your posts lately....either you have changed, I have changed, or we both have changed?

Or, perhaps I am paying more attention to exactly what you have posted?

A bit of all those, but I'd venture to say mostly the last one. I know there're points we'll probably always disagree on, but recently we've both been talking about issues that we happen to strongly agree on. That plus I tend to argue very subtle shades of grey that are often mistaken as black or white.... ;)

Wasn't the SCOTUS decision an invalidation of Bush's authority to do just that?

The full opinion references too much american law that I don't know so I have to rely on abbreviations in news sources. Fro mwhat I can make out SCOTUS said his decision was wrong but that he had the right to make it.

It was one of the key reasons why Alberto Gonzales wrote his legal opinion advising Bush to not apply the GWPs. As these protocols are now considered to apply, administration officials have oppened themselves up to both domestic and international criminal charges....
This is one of the first things that came to my mind when SCOTUS made their ruling. However, the US is not a signator to the ICC, so I don't know how that would play out if any future charges are brought forward. At any rate, I am glad to see that some sanity prevails in the US in regards to international laws and treaties.

A bit of all those, but I'd venture to say mostly the last one. I know there're points we'll probably always disagree on, but recently we've both been talking about issues that we happen to strongly agree on. That plus I tend to argue very subtle shades of grey that are often mistaken as black or white.... ;)
You are probably right on all you stated. I will try to focus on the subtle shades in future. ;)

The full opinion references too much american law that I don't know so I have to rely on abbreviations in news sources. Fro mwhat I can make out SCOTUS said his decision was wrong but that he had the right to make it.

From what I can read out of the majority decision, Bush was not authorized under the grounds he claimed, the AUMF and DTA if I read it right, to create the tribunals used to try suspects. As such, the detainees are to be tried using existing tribunals, unless Congress grants the President authority to create tribunals.

The problem with this is that the people captured were generally not following the customs of war.

yes, the US government admit 70% of them werent following the most basic custom of war. Fighting.

This is one of the first things that came to my mind when SCOTUS made their ruling. However, the US is not a signator to the ICC, so I don't know how that would play out if any future charges are brought forward. At any rate, I am glad to see that some sanity prevails in the US in regards to international laws and treaties.

I'm looking more towards charges under US Code, Part I, Title 18, Chapter 118, section 2441 (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) (aka the War Crimes Act of 1996), which makes vioplating the GWPs and Hauge Conventions Federal crimes (and note they are capital crimes if deaths resulted...)

Of futher note, the Gonzales Memo of 25 January, 2002 specifically cited fear of prosecutions under the War Crimes Act as one of the primary reasons for denying GWP POW status.


You are probably right on all you stated. I will try to focus on the subtle shades in future. ;)

We all should.

yes, the US government admit 70% of them werent following the most basic custom of war. Fighting.

If I read your meaning right, :D

From what I can read out of the majority decision, Bush was not authorized under the grounds he claimed, the AUMF and DTA if I read it right, to create the tribunals used to try suspects. As such, the detainees are to be tried using existing tribunals, unless Congress grants the President authority to create tribunals.

But my point has nothing to do with the proposed military tribunals for the trials of suspects.

My point pertained to Article 5.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The tribunal I was discussing is meant to ascertain the status of a detainee, not his guilt or not.

yes, the US government admit 70% of them werent following the most basic custom of war. Fighting.

I do like that one.

But my point has nothing to do with the proposed military tribunals for the trials of suspects.

My point pertained to Article 5.

The tribunal I was discussing is meant to ascertain the status of a detainee, not his guilt or not.

This is why I shouldn't post before lunch. My bad, just ignore my previous comments.

I'm looking more towards charges under US Code, Part I, Title 18, Chapter 118, section 2441 (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) (aka the War Crimes Act of 1996), which makes vioplating the GWPs and Hauge Conventions Federal crimes (and note they are capital crimes if deaths resulted...)
Extremely interesting to say the least. However, I do believe that the Bush administration is teflon coated. Time will tell.

Of futher note, the Gonzales Memo of 25 January, 2002 specifically cited fear of prosecutions under the War Crimes Act as one of the primary reasons for denying GWP POW status.
I can't remember too much about the memo, other than it implying that the Bush administration could circumvent international laws by declaring detainees as "enemy combatants". I do believe that the decision that was made regarding detainees at that time, cast a dark shadow on your great country.

We all should.
Indeed!!

I hope the yanks will close their weird rape camps and gulags soon.

Personally, I doubt much of anything will come of all this for at least two years unless there's a massive upheaval in Congress this year and Bush get impeached by a Democratic majority. As long as he's in power, subordinates will take the fall for everything the Administration gets pinned for, and they'll do their best to maintain their status quo. The -only- reason they're putting up such a show of slowly backing down, is because they know they're running out of political power. Bush has very low ratings, his policies have very low ratings, and nobody wants to be seen associating with him too strongly right now. Thus, he needs to compromise in order to get -anything- done finally, instead of commanding obedience from the rank and file like in his first term.

Remember, even if facing life in prison or a death penalty... these people can likely count on Bush to then pardon them for helping keep him from being the first president executed for treason and/or war crimes.

This is why I shouldn't post before lunch. My bad, just ignore my previous comments.

Cool.

Incidentally, I'm not a Bush supporter, far from it, I just think thats it's important that people don't allow their dislike for a man cloud their judgements as to whether he's a criminal or not.

I hope the yanks will close their weird rape camps and gulags soon.
Close our gulags? You may take our freedom, but you'll never take our gulags!

Close our gulags? You may take our freedom, but you'll never take our gulags!
:D I think you stole that from a Bush speech.