NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, the military tribunals set up by Congress to try "unlawful enemy combatants" has hit a snag. CNN Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/04/guantananmo.detainee.ap/)

The judges agreed that there was one problem they could not resolve -- the new legislation says only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan had previously been identified by military panels only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical "unlawful" designation.

Since the detainees aren't classified as "unlawful", the tribunal lacks the authority to charge them with anything. Even worse:

Sullivan said the dismissal has "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

So, all the trouble Congress went to to create a system for trying Gitmo detainees, and they forgot to make sure the tribunals had jurisdiction. Looks like a new round of detainee status hearings is on the way.

So, they're all lawful enemy combatants?


As in prisoners of war?

Oh snap, here comes the Geneva Convention.

So, they're all lawful enemy combatants?


As in prisoners of war?

Oh snap, here comes the Geneva Convention.

No, I think they're "enemy combatants" without the predicate, which is why the wording of the legislation tripped them up.

No, I think they're "enemy combatants" without the predicate, which is why the wording of the legislation tripped them up.

I should probably just leave this thread now before the legalese breaks my brain.

Ugh. I could swear we'd already had this discussion with RO about the Geneva Conventions a month or so ago. We trounced him, so there's not much point in bringing it up again.

Well anyway. This is what the American's get when they try and fail miserably to reinterpret the Geneva Convention.

I should probably just leave this thread now before the legalese breaks my brain.

Lawyers have a habit of doing that.

Apparently, the military tribunals set up by Congress to try "unlawful enemy combatants" has hit a snag. CNN Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/04/guantananmo.detainee.ap/)



Since the detainees aren't classified as "unlawful", the tribunal lacks the authority to charge them with anything. Even worse:



So, all the trouble Congress went to to create a system for trying Gitmo detainees, and they forgot to make sure the tribunals had jurisdiction. Looks like a new round of detainee status hearings is on the way.

That's what you get for trying to bureaucratize around people's rights, I guess.

Part of the problem is that now, unfortunately, no other countries want to accept these individuals. They think "Gitmo, ahhhhhh shit" and tell the US to keep 'em.

What we need to do is build a fairly nice facility for the detainees to reside in, until they can find a country to go to. Mayhaps Cuba would be an option :) If Castro takes them, I might even advocate permitting Cigar Importation.

No, I think it would be easier to take them back to their home country, whether or not the home country wants them.

Here's an option:

Fly over their home country in a Stealth Bomber at night. They won't see it.

Make sure the guy has a regular T-10 parachute on. Slow to around 140 knots, and make him take the traditional static lilne parachute drop.

He's their problem now.

No, I think it would be easier to take them back to their home country, whether or not the home country wants them.

Here's an option:

Fly over their home country in a Stealth Bomber at night. They won't see it.

Make sure the guy has a regular T-10 parachute on. Slow to around 140 knots, and make him take the traditional static lilne parachute drop.

He's their problem now.


Or you could profusely apologise to them for thier ill treatment, then offer to pay for their flight home. If they can't get back home, negotiate with other nations, (European, American, Asian etc.) to see if they will accept them. If they don't, give them housing in America.

You made them a problem. You have to deal with it.

Or you could profusely apologise to them for thier ill treatment, then offer to pay for their flight home. If they can't get back home, negotiate with other nations, (European, American, Asian etc.) to see if they will accept them. If they don't, give them housing in America.

You made them a problem. You have to deal with it.

Pretty much, yeah.

WHAT charges? You have to have them to drop them...

Pretty much, yeah.

Wow. I wasn't sure whether you'd agree with me. Thanks! :)

No, I think it would be easier to take them back to their home country, whether or not the home country wants them.

Here's an option:

Fly over their home country in a Stealth Bomber at night. They won't see it.

Make sure the guy has a regular T-10 parachute on. Slow to around 140 knots, and make him take the traditional static lilne parachute drop.

He's their problem now.

Or you could even let the countries that want their own citizens back, have them.

Britain, for example is still trying to get some of it's citizens released after being illegally held for years
have a look if you don't believe me (]http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2050350,00.html)

Or you could profusely apologise to them for thier ill treatment, then offer to pay for their flight home. If they can't get back home, negotiate with other nations, (European, American, Asian etc.) to see if they will accept them. If they don't, give them housing in America.

You made them a problem. You have to deal with it.

Apparently, almost none of the home countries want them back.

Wonder why?

No, I think it would be easier to take them back to their home country, whether or not the home country wants them.

Here's an option:

Fly over their home country in a Stealth Bomber at night. They won't see it.

Make sure the guy has a regular T-10 parachute on. Slow to around 140 knots, and make him take the traditional static lilne parachute drop.

He's their problem now.

Or you could even let the countries that want their own citizens back, have them.

Britain, for example is still trying to get some of it's citizens released after being illegally held for years
Guardian report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2050350,00.html)

Apparently, almost none of the home countries want them back.

Wonder why?

Because many of them are in fact suspected political dissidents from Pakistan, and Mussharaf has too much on his plate as it is without a load of pissed off former Guantanamo Bay detainee's stirring up more dissent than they may or may not have before they got whisked off to Cuba?

So, they're all lawful enemy combatants?
As in prisoners of war?
Oh snap, here comes the Geneva Convention.

No, I think they're "enemy combatants" without the predicate

"Enemy combatants without the predicate" are given the same rights as POWs by the wording of the Geneva Convention. Period.

Now, I'm awaiting for the trials against Bush and his cabinet for violating the Convention... ok, I'm too optimistic, I know, but let me dream, at least!;)

does this mean the war of terror is lost and we can have our civil liberties back along with a middle east that though violent doesn't spread fear in western minds?

*plans street celebrations*

does this mean the war of terror is lost and we can have our civil liberties back along with a middle east that though violent doesn't spread fear in western minds?

*plans street celebrations*

Unfortunately no. But it may lead to Congress finally realising Guantanamo doesn't help to prevent terror, but rather exacerbates the problem, and that they are in fact betraying the principles the United States proudly claims it was founded upon, and violating the Geneva Conventions.

"Enemy combatants without the predicate" are given the same rights as POWs by the wording of the Geneva Convention. Period.

Now, I'm awaiting for the trials against Bush and his cabinet for violating the Convention... ok, I'm too optimistic, I know, but let me dream, at least!;)

I guess you missed the announcement back when Rumsfeld was still around, ordering the inmates at Gitmo to be given the same rights as POWs according to the Convention.

Witnessed by the ICRC.

Which is why we're doing the trials, and having the legal knots - because you have to have fair trials by the Conventions.

Military tribunals are sufficient, provided they are legal under national law.

Haven't you noticed anything? Read the papers?

I guess you missed the announcement back when Rumsfeld was still around, ordering the inmates at Gitmo to be given the same rights as POWs according to the Convention.
This one, you mean?
Consistent with American values and the principles of the Geneva Convention, the United States has treated and will continue to treat all Taliban and al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention.
In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html
...which should be good enough, but they still have to go all the way to the US Supreme Court in the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeldt case before it was determined that the detainees were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. It only took them three years after the above-mentioned statement.


I also love this part:
The American people can take great pride in the way our military is treating these dangerous detainees. The Convention remains as important today as it was the day it was signed, and the United States is proud of its 50-year history in compliance with the Convention.
:D

Mr. Fleischer was a great stand-up comic :D

Apparently, the military tribunals set up by Congress to try "unlawful enemy combatants" has hit a snag. CNN Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/04/guantananmo.detainee.ap/)



Since the detainees aren't classified as "unlawful", the tribunal lacks the authority to charge them with anything. Even worse:



So, all the trouble Congress went to to create a system for trying Gitmo detainees, and they forgot to make sure the tribunals had jurisdiction. Looks like a new round of detainee status hearings is on the way.

God, the system is such a fucking travesty. Guantanamo should have been closed down years ago! It's undermining the fight against extremist islamism, feeding the propaganda machine of the "enemy", violating human rights and basically destroying the US moral standing in the world. What's left of it, that is...

The US has about the same moral standing as China now. Which, FYI, going into the negatives...

What makes for an "unlawful" enemy combatant?

Good to know that there are moral people that are USA Military judges.
And that they are standing up to the farce that is Gitmo.

God, the system is such a fucking travesty. Guantanamo should have been closed down years ago! It's undermining the fight against extremist islamism, feeding the propaganda machine of the "enemy", violating human rights and basically destroying the US moral standing in the world. What's left of it, that is...

It's one hell of a train wreck, that's for sure. I wonder if any of the Congressmen that wrote the legislation creating these tribunals knew that none of the Gitmo detainees were "unlawful", or if they just took the President's word on it...

It's one hell of a train wreck, that's for sure. I wonder if any of the Congressmen that wrote the legislation creating these tribunals knew that none of the Gitmo detainees were "unlawful", or if they just took the President's word on it...

Well, considering that they've released about half the people they've kept there, and not gotten a single conviction (the plea bargain doesn't count) I would say it's turned into the biggest blunder since the decision to invade Iraq due to WMDs.

Apparently, almost none of the home countries want them back.

Wonder why?

Let's see you back something up for once. If it is, as you say "apparent", then surely you can provide us some sort of substance.

I won't bother holding my breath, though...

Regardless, since when is the US the World Court? trying prisoners of war and all...

Regardless, since when is the US the World Court? trying prisoners of war and all...

:confused:

Regardless, since when is the US the World Court? trying prisoners of war and all...
:confused:

What Sel Appa means is that, according to the Geneva Conventions, a world court is needed to try illegal combattants.

From Article 1 of the Hauge Convention -

2) that they wear (identifying) insignia which can be recognized from a distance,
3) that they carry their weapons openly and
4) that they observe the rules and customs of war in their actions.

Al Qaeda and Iraqi partisans do not match any of the above. They hide their weapons and have no uniforms. They do not obey the rules of war, and behave in a terrifically horrible way. Eg beheading of foreigners like the sickening murder of Jewish American journalist Daniel Pearl, or mutilations of captured US soldiers.

Article 358d of the American Rules for Ground Warfare:

In general, the armed forces or the civilian population may be subjected to legal reprisals. Hostages who have been captured or detained in custody for the declared purpose of serving as insurance against illegal actions on the part of the enemy forces or population, may be killed if the illegal actions are nonetheless committed.

Here are some people who really belong in Guantanamo and Gitmo and deserve no mercy. Here are thousands of potential terrorist cells. You have more than your share in Hamburg! If I remember, one of the 11 September Bombers was an immigrant from Hamburg. Although try to arrest these so called 'protestors' and one will get labelled a 'racist', 'intoleratn' and 'xenophobe' or even killed by Osama Bin Laden's friends in Europe, which are the Greens, the Reds, the Eurocrats and the Socialists who open up the borders. Just look at the real face of the hell of diversity and multi-culturalism! Wake up! A multi-ethnic society is alright, but a multi-cultural society is not. This is why we need men like Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen!

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/5189/post13091156513484vi8.jpg

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6163/post13091156513495bp3.jpg

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3195/post13091156513508ct2.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/3134/post13091156513568pm9.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5038/post13091156513623ek6.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8215/post13091156513640yo6.jpg

Now from this picture tell me who are the real Nazis and facists! And conservative patriots like Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen are smeared as fascists for opposing Islamo-Facism!

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3660/post13091156513651mj7.jpg

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8785/post13091156513694kp3.jpg

Guantanamo! These men are much less dangerous there.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8662/guantanamoir3.jpg

From Article 1 of the Hauge Convention -

Al Qaeda and Iraqi partisans do not match any of the above. They hide their weapons and have no uniforms. They do not obey the rules of war, and behave in a terrifically horrible way. Eg beheading of foreigners like the sickening murder of Jewish American journalist Daniel Pearl, or mutilations of captured US soldiers.

Article 358d of the American Rules for Ground Warfare:
Problem is, the United States hasn't proved any Gitmo detainees had any part in these organizations. These tribunals were created for that purpose, but it seems the government dropped the ball on that.

I'm, not sure why you included that section of rules of ground warfare, though I didn't know America allowed the capture and execution of hostages. Trying to imply that is the purpose of the Gitmo detainees?

Image spam snippage

You want to rant about who belongs in Gitmo, make another thread. This one is about the people already there and what is being done about them.

From Article 1 of the Hauge Convention -


Unless I'm mistaken the same Hague Convention also states that anybody, anybody, can spontaneously rise up to fight off an invading force. Any and all Iraqi, whether they are member of a terrorist organization or not, can pick up arms against the Us forces and be considered legitimate fighter.

And let's not even go into the fact that terrorism is not an act of war but a criminal activity.


Al Qaeda and Iraqi partisans do not match any of the above. They hide their weapons and have no uniforms. They do not obey the rules of war, and behave in a terrifically horrible way. Eg beheading of foreigners like the sickening murder of Jewish American journalist Daniel Pearl, or mutilations of captured US soldiers.
And USA soldiers have done terrible things like shooting spree and killing people that were helpless. Now that the fact that everybody fights dirty is acknowledged, can we go on and discuss what to do with the Gitmo detainees?

Although try to arrest these so called 'protestors' and one will get labelled a ... *Snip*
So you don't like democracy. That's fair enough, I suppose...
Guantanamo! These men are much less dangerous there.
Maybe so. Too bad the people kept in Guantanamo is nothing like them, innit?

Part of the problem is that now, unfortunately, no other countries want to accept these individuals.Australia.. UK.. France.. Germany.. Canada.. etc
we all know they are refusing to take them back [/sarcasm]

Here are some ....(..I need attention, attention, attention, O I'm so funny, really....I am. Not lonely, no..).......men are much less dangerous there.



You could leave out the pic spam.......

They do not obey the rules of war, and behave in a terrifically horrible way. Eg beheading of foreigners like the sickening murder of Jewish American journalist Daniel Pearl, or mutilations of captured US soldiers.what does JMLP means?

JMLP, see previous comment (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12742398&postcount=107) re pic-spam (made after you went offline, so I'm not accusing you of ignoring it).

Ask yourself if a pic explains or clarifies your argument. You don't need to post a pic just because a name is mentioned. I'm looking at the Guantanamo one here; you can reasonably assume, in a political game like NS, that other players know what Guantanamo is.

what does JMLP means?

Jaded Muppet with Leprous Prosthetics?

Well if their not soldiers because they have no Geneva POW rights, and their not humans because they have no international human rights, what exactly are they? Nothing?