NationStates Jolt Archive

The prisoners there are being treated fairly well, its rules there are very strict as its being continually watched by human rights organisations and the liberal media. Shouldn't we be more focused on the secret prisons that America is running around the world?

Which secret prisons? Where are they and what are their names?

The liberal media is watching me right now, and I can’t get anything done.

Haha, they tried to do that before but Bush has finally admitted they exist

Did I miss some magical wand moment where all the people held there where given due process and either charged with a crime and tried in a timely manner or released?

It happened right after the Regular Army Wand was waved and turned them into uniformed soldiers that actually qualify for Geneva protections.

It happened right after the Regular Army Wand was waved and turned them into uniformed soldiers that actually qualify for Geneva protections.

So they're not soldiers? Why aren't they being treated like regualr criminals then?

It happened right after the Regular Army Wand was waved and turned them into uniformed soldiers that actually qualify for Geneva protections.

I hate this argument on so many levels. "If we pick up someone with a patch on thier shirt they get all these protections. But if we pick up just any body we can do whatever the hell we want, hold them without charging them for years! It's okay, they didn't belong to a club we recognize, so it's all good."

Yarrr, I would wager that it be as they are still concerning, matey.

They're illegal combatants (well, most of them are).

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.

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.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.I'm not seeing how people picked up in Afghanistan count as soldiers. Largely because of that whole "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" bit. And, not being US Citizens, I don't see how they qualify for US Constitutional protections.

But, hey. I'm just reading from the actual Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). A silly practice, I know.

As for not giving Geneva protections to people who don't qualify, well... if you can flaunt the Conventions without any repercussions, where is the motivation for anyone to follow them? The whole point is "You do these things that make waging war more difficult, and you'll be better off if captured." To mangle a cliche, without the stick, the carrot's worthless.

By all means... carry on. Just... consider there might be reasons behind actions besides "evil".

They're illegal combatants (well, most of them are).

I'm not seeing how people picked up in Afghanistan count as soldiers. Largely because of that whole "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" bit. And, not being US Citizens, I don't see how they qualify for US Constitutional protections.

But, hey. I'm just reading from the actual Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). A silly practice, I know.

As for not giving Geneva protections to people who don't qualify, well... if you can flaunt the Conventions without any repercussions, where is the motivation for anyone to follow them? The whole point is "You do these things that make waging war more difficult, and you'll be better off if captured." To mangle a cliche, without the stick, the carrot's worthless.

By all means... carry on. Just... consider there might be reasons behind actions besides "evil".

No, sorry. I don't buy it. Neither did the Supreme Court. We can't just do what ever we want with these people because they didn't put a patch on thier shirt and give the secret handshake. They did something wrong? Fucking charge them with something. If we don't have something on them, let them go. Simple as that.

They're illegal combatants (well, most of them are).

I'm not seeing how people picked up in Afghanistan count as soldiers. Largely because of that whole "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" bit. And, not being US Citizens, I don't see how they qualify for US Constitutional protections.

See I think this is where the whole thing falls down. If I was arrested for a crime on US soil or extradited to the US to face charges then I would be covered by the US constitution so I don't see why it isn't applied to the guys at Gitmo.

As for most of them being enemy combatants, it easy to claim that when you have set up a system that doesn't require you to show any proof of it.

I need to quit reading this forum 5 minutes before I have to log off...

No, sorry. I don't buy it. Neither did the Supreme Court.Wasn't any of SCOTUS' business. Execution of a war is the Executive Branch's deal. And, frankly, SCOTUS was wrong. It happens sometimes.

As for most of them being enemy combatants, it easy to claim that when you have set up a system that doesn't require you to show any proof of it.Ah yes. Nothing like ignoring the central point of someone's post. I'm making no claims of people like the Shoe Bomber, or the German national who was released after a few years. I'm talking about people picked up in a war zone attempting to kill US soldiers.

They're not prisoners of war because they don't meet the requirments of the Conventions. They're not petty criminals because they weren't picked up by the police in US jurisdiction. There's not many options left. Giving them Geneva protections when they don't qualify makes the Conventions worthless; turning them loose because they're outside of US criminal jurisdiction is unthinkable.

And, not being US Citizens, I don't see how they qualify for US Constitutional protections.


Um, people on U.S. territory are entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution- just like every other country in the world. Because I'm not a U.S. citizen and I'm travelling through the United States, does not mean I don't have the same rights as everyone else there.

Ah yes. Nothing like ignoring the central point of someone's post. I'm making no claims of people like the Shoe Bomber, or the German national who was released after a few years. I'm talking about people picked up in a war zone attempting to kill US soldiers.

They're not prisoners of war because they don't meet the requirments of the Conventions. They're not petty criminals because they weren't picked up by the police in US jurisdiction. There's not many options left. Giving them Geneva protections when they don't qualify makes the Conventions worthless; turning them loose because they're outside of US criminal jurisdiction is unthinkable.

I didn't ignore the central point of your post, I agree that the people classified as enemy combatants are not prisoners of war.

They have, however, commited crimes against the US, the same as every other criminal in the US justice system and where they were picked up and who by is irrelevent.

I need to quit reading this forum 5 minutes before I have to log off...

Wasn't any of SCOTUS' business. Execution of a war is the Executive Branch's deal. And, frankly, SCOTUS was wrong. It happens sometimes.

Ah yes. Nothing like ignoring the central point of someone's post. I'm making no claims of people like the Shoe Bomber, or the German national who was released after a few years. I'm talking about people picked up in a war zone attempting to kill US soldiers.

They're not prisoners of war because they don't meet the requirments of the Conventions. They're not petty criminals because they weren't picked up by the police in US jurisdiction. There's not many options left. Giving them Geneva protections when they don't qualify makes the Conventions worthless; turning them loose because they're outside of US criminal jurisdiction is unthinkable.
You either have a legal cause to hold them or you let them go. We can't just go around picking up people and saying, "They're dangerous, take our word for it." It doesn't matter if they're not governed by a set of laws, we are. And if we can't respect our system then why should anybody? Internment goes against everything we're supposed to stand for and gives lie to the ideals that we try and flaunt so smuggly.

EDIT: Dammit, fogot-and it's SCOTUS's job to check Executive power, even in the excussion of war. Especially a war as ill-defined as 'the war on terror.'

Setting asides the fact that many in Gitmo were farmers handed by warlord for quick cash and nowhere near a combat zone, I'd say that for the Geneva conventions to apply, you have to be in a war. Al-Quaeda does not qualify as an army (or else there wouldn't be this talk about uniform) so you can't be waging a war against them. It is a police action and suspect arrested in a police action are subject to due process.

Because there are innocent people there being held without cause by the US Government.

It happened right after the Regular Army Wand was waved and turned them into uniformed soldiers that actually qualify for Geneva protections.

And right before the Due Process wand that turned them into something other than regular citizens who, despite the lies of Dubya, were not picked up off of a battle field by US troops?

Because there are innocent people there being held without cause by the US Government.

Cause schmause. Reality is for liberal elitists who think that civil rights are more important than Republican government.

Cause schmause. Reality is for liberal elitists who think that civil rights are more important than Republican government.
Indeed, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

So you arguement is because they weren't arrested they can't be charged and therefore can be held prisoner indefinately without trial?

I agree with you on the issue of the Geneva Convention. If those who are guilty, which conveniently hasn't been established in a court of law, refuse to follow the rules set out by the Geneva Convention then why should they be protected by it?

I don't know what American law states or if there is a precedent for this. Do you consider this the precedent? What's the worse they can do if released? The taliban is growing stronger regardless and Iraq is already a mess. Gitmo just give our enemies another excuse to attack.

Trilby63;11701921']So you arguement is because they weren't arrested they can't be charged and therefore can be held prisoner indefinately without trial?

I agree with you on the issue of the Geneva Convention. If those who are guilty, which conveniently hasn't been established in a court of law, refuse to follow the rules set out by the Geneva Convention then why should they be protected by it?

I don't know what American law states or if there is a precedent for this. Do you consider this the precedent? What's the worse they can do if released? The taliban is growing stronger regardless and Iraq is already a mess. Gitmo just give our enemies another excuse to attack.

The point of it is meant to be a scary deterrant and to white wash the more serious human rights abuses and torture that goes on else where.

They're illegal combatants (well, most of them are).

I'm not seeing how people picked up in Afghanistan count as soldiers. Largely because of that whole "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" bit. And, not being US Citizens, I don't see how they qualify for US Constitutional protections.

But, hey. I'm just reading from the actual Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). A silly practice, I know.

As for not giving Geneva protections to people who don't qualify, well... if you can flaunt the Conventions without any repercussions, where is the motivation for anyone to follow them? The whole point is "You do these things that make waging war more difficult, and you'll be better off if captured." To mangle a cliche, without the stick, the carrot's worthless.

By all means... carry on. Just... consider there might be reasons behind actions besides "evil".
Since you're quoting the actual Convention, maybe you should read it.
To wit:
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.
Explain to me how the people fighting US soldiers in Afghanistan don't fall into this category?
If you're going to say 'But they don't respect the laws and customs of war!', kindly provide examples where each and every prisoner in Gitmo has ignored said laws and customs, thereby invalidating themselves with respect to the Convention.

And this part:
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.
When have the prisoners in Gitmo been taken before a competent tribunal?
That's what the whole SCOTUS appeal was about, wasn't it? The fact that none of them have, as yet, had their status determined by any tribunal, competent or not. And many of them have been 5 years now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/

Sent to Syria, tortured, sent back to Canada after finding out he didn't do anything.

Tell me this shit doesn't happen in Gitmo. People are 'suspected', 'detained', 'interrogated', and eventually, maybe, after some consideration and a few years of unwarranted arrest, they're 'released' nothing so much as an apology.

Trilby63;11701921']I don't know what American law states or if there is a precedent for this. Do you consider this the precedent? What's the worse they can do if released? The taliban is growing stronger regardless and Iraq is already a mess. Gitmo just give our enemies another excuse to attack.
And with Gitmo having gone on for so long, it's now become a catch-22 situation for the West.
Keeping it open gives them a focus point for their anger.
Closing it will look like a victory for their attacks in their eyes.

I need to quit reading this forum 5 minutes before I have to log off...

Wasn't any of SCOTUS' business. Execution of a war is the Executive Branch's deal. And, frankly, SCOTUS was wrong. It happens sometimes.

SCOTUS's business is anything they want to review on appeal. The issue at hand wasn't execution of war, it was the processing of detainees, and in this case SCOTUS gave Congress credit as the body that sets the rules and makes law, not the President. They're trying to maintain a balance of power that the Executive has been screwing with for the last few years by claiming more and more authority, and if Congress hasn't seen fit to hold onto its own authority, then SCOTUS will make sure it does.
Ah yes. Nothing like ignoring the central point of someone's post. I'm making no claims of people like the Shoe Bomber, or the German national who was released after a few years. I'm talking about people picked up in a war zone attempting to kill US soldiers.

They're not prisoners of war because they don't meet the requirments of the Conventions. They're not petty criminals because they weren't picked up by the police in US jurisdiction. There's not many options left. Giving them Geneva protections when they don't qualify makes the Conventions worthless; turning them loose because they're outside of US criminal jurisdiction is unthinkable.
Leaving aside the question of the actual circumstance of the capture of these prisoners, which is still open since no real information has been given about the detainees, where the Convention fails to set rules and regulations, our legislature does so. Seeing as they are in U.S. custody, it's up to our laws to decide status and process for these combatants. The Senate is still working out those rules, IIRC, and we'll have to see what mechanism is created to deal with the Guantanamo detainees to judge if the right action is being taken. I'm just glad to see some steps being taken after all this time.

Honestly, I could care less about the Geneva Convention. I expect people to be treated like people, not animals, regardless of where you come from, especially if you're trying to 'win hearts and minds'.

They're illegal combatants (well, most of them are).

I'm not seeing how people picked up in Afghanistan count as soldiers. Largely because of that whole "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" bit. And, not being US Citizens, I don't see how they qualify for US Constitutional protections.

But, hey. I'm just reading from the actual Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). A silly practice, I know.

As for not giving Geneva protections to people who don't qualify, well... if you can flaunt the Conventions without any repercussions, where is the motivation for anyone to follow them? The whole point is "You do these things that make waging war more difficult, and you'll be better off if captured." To mangle a cliche, without the stick, the carrot's worthless.

By all means... carry on. Just... consider there might be reasons behind actions besides "evil".

Non-citizens have the same constitutional right to due process. It's in the constitution.

Non-citizens have the same constitutional right to due process. It's in the constitution.

In that case, where the hell are the trials?

They're illegal combatants (well, most of them are).

I'm not seeing how people picked up in Afghanistan count as soldiers. Largely because of that whole "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" bit. And, not being US Citizens, I don't see how they qualify for US Constitutional protections.

By all means... carry on. Just... consider there might be reasons behind actions besides "evil".

What exact reasons would those be?

Cause it seems to me that these people are being held without due process.
I really dont care if they took shots at Bush himself, they ought to be given thier day in a fair court like anyone else who gets detained in this country.

You can tell me they arent actual "combatants", and that the Geneva convention doesnt apply to them, but really, that just sounds like someone attempting to spread enough bullshit on a bagel to cover the taste of more bullshit.

What right to we have to impose our form of Democracy on a third world nation, if we do not extend the same rights and priveledges to those people in our custody?

To eliminate one government on some accusations of tyranny, and then to hold several hundred people for years without fair trials is the most hippocritical things I can think of, and frankly, any attempt to come up with reasons why this hasnt been done is sheer bullshit.