Apparently, despair is now an act of war

[Banquo's Ghost]

Three inmates of Guantanamo have committed suicide. But the eejit in charge considers this an 'act of war'.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5068606.stm)


"I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of warfare waged against us." Rear Adm Harry Harris, Camp commander.

So they somehow scored a victory? What planet does this man come from? Is he so infected by propaganda that he cannot see a human tragedy?

None of these men have been charged with a crime, given legal representation, or know when and if they will be released - or even brought to a fair trial. Which one of you can say they would stand up to such a plight without despair? But if they escape the only way they have, they are suddenly terrorists carrying out acts of war?

Guantanamo is a stain on the soul of America. The fact that the American people passively allow it to exist is yet another tragedy.

[Geoffrey S]

Allowing such a thing as Guantanamo to exist doesn't exactly promote confidence in the US; it's very tempting to think if they're truly dangerous, prosecute them and then stick them there. At least remove the ambiguity such a prison presents.

As for warfare. It may be an overstatement, but the fact that they committed suicide nearly simultaneously implies a coordinated action. And if their goal was discrediting the prison even more their goal was achieved, witness for instance this topic.

[Duke of Gloucester]

And if their goal was discrediting the prison even more their goal was achieved, witness for instance this topic.

True. Of course, this would be a political act, not an act of war.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As for warfare. It may be an overstatement, but the fact that they committed suicide nearly simultaneously implies a coordinated action. And if their goal was discrediting the prison even more their goal was achieved, witness for instance this topic.

They may have found a window of opportunity together - the regime there makes it very difficult to commit suicide, as I understand.

And is it actually possible to discredit that prison any more?


True. Of course, this would be a political act, not an act of war.

Exactly.

[Avicenna]

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."



Okay, does he want to world to think he has serious problems or something? So now, suicide when illegally detained is now an act of war? Refusing to co-operate with someone who detains you for a long time, perhaps even for life, is now a crime against the country that detains you? So, are they saying the Jews who escaped from the Concentration Camps or Russians who escaped from Gulags are now war-waging criminals because they disobey? WHAT?!

[-Silent-Pariya]

They keep prisoners in these secret camps under de facto effective control.

The U.N. cries for these places to be shut down, the people do the same.

What do they do?

They avoid the situation as much as possible and give half ass answers and half ass actions.

Anyone who argues with the government these days is labeled a:hippie: ...

[Marcellus]

I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of warfare waged against us.

I've heard some bizarre things, but this is perhaps the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. Can this person not conceive that people who have been imprisoned for years without even knowing what they are accused of, let alone having a fair trial, without much hope of ever getting out, might just be driven to take their own lives out of despair?

[rory_20_uk]

What worries me is thinking that someone so advanced in the US military might really think that.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

What worries me is thinking that someone so advanced in the US military might really think that.

Well that is down to the new ranking system , a rear admiral is now someone who is backwards .

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think most of the people there are not American citizens, but fighters captured overseas. The idea of giving them trials in the American civilian justice system is somewhat rediculous. You don't give POWs trials, especially since they'd just turn into show trials.

Crazed Rabbit

[Hurin_Rules]

I think most of the people there are not American citizens, but fighters captured overseas. The idea of giving them trials in the American civilian justice system is somewhat rediculous. You don't give POWs trials, especially since they'd just turn into show trials.


Ah, but you do give POWs POW status, don't you? Visits from the Red Cross, fair military tribunals, freed after the conflict, etc. etc. And that is something the administration will not do. Hence, in the case of the captured Taliban at least, they are violating the laws of war. The Taliban was a militia defending its country, and yet not even they are considered POWs.

To reiterate: 9/11 was an act of War. America is at War. There is a War on Terror going on. But the prisoners captured in it are not Prisoners of War.

Ridiculous.

[Hurin_Rules]

And now, in the category of 'most callous statements ever', a top US official called the deaths a 'good PR move'.



Guantanamo suicides a 'PR move'

A top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention".

Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary.

But lawyers say the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.

A military investigation into the deaths is under way, amid growing calls for the centre to be moved or closed.

Speaking to the BBC's Newshour programme, Ms Graffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, said the three men did not value their lives nor the lives of those around them.

Detainees had access to lawyers, received mail and had the ability to write to families, so had other means of making protests, she said, and it was hard to see why the men had not protested about their situation.


The men, two Saudis and a Yemeni, were found unresponsive and not breathing by guards on Saturday morning, said officials.

They were in separate cells in Camp One, the highest security section of the prison.

Despair

There have been dozens of suicide attempts since the camp was set up four years ago - but none successful until now.

I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of warfare waged against us

Rear Adm Harry Harris Camp commander

Ken Roth, head of Human Rights Watch in New York, told the BBC the men had probably been driven by despair.

"These people are despairing because they are being held lawlessly," he said.

"There's no end in sight. They're not being brought before any independent judges. They're not being charged and convicted for any crime."

That view was supported by British Muslim Moazzam Begg who spent three years in Guantanamo. He said of the camp's inmates: "They're in a worse situation than convicted criminals and it's an act of desperation."

But earlier, the camp commander, Rear Adm Harris said he did not believe the men had killed themselves out of despair.

"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

Calls for closure

US officials are facing growing international calls for the camp to be closed down.

"If it's perfectly legal and there's nothing going wrong there - well, why don't they have it in America and then the American court system can supervise it?" UK Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman told the BBC on Sunday.

But Ms Graffy said closing down Guantanamo was a "complicated process" which needed to consider what would happen to detainees if the centre was shut down.

On Friday, Mr Bush said he would "like to end Guantanamo", adding he believed the inmates "ought to be tried in courts here in the United States".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm

[rory_20_uk]

Try them at the Hague then. International courts. We would then be able to ascertain what if any evidence has been gained, and who should be held.

We all know the likely outcome of the light of the law being shone into the dank hole that is Guantanamo. Hence why this is not going to happen without a great change in the USA's administration. That would be good - send all to the Hague, release 80+% of them and start a new leaf, with the blame left behind as a legacy of Bush.

~:smoking:

[scooter_the_shooter]

The people there are terrorist and you guys sympathize with them?:help: They want to kill me or convert me so....I don't care what happens to them. (I know this will get me flamed by all the bleeding hearts out there)


Many people don't seem to get that were playing for keeps in the war on terror.

[Tribesman]

The people there are terrorist
Yeah ??? prove it then .

Many people don't seem to get that were playing for keeps in the war on terror.
Nope , the administration is playing silly buggers in the war on terror , or hadn't you noticed .

[rory_20_uk]

(sigh) they are suspects. And after months / years there is not enough evidence to convict any of them.

~:smoking:

[Ronin]

The people there are terrorist and you guys sympathize with them?:help: They want to kill me or convert me so....I don't care what happens to them. (I know this will get me flamed by all the bleeding hearts out there)


Many people don't seem to get that were playing for keeps in the war on terror.


If you have proof to back up what you´re saying please present it......

until then these are people that are being held without formal charges or a hearing...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Cube - isn't the majority there not US citizens? :inquisitive: Do non-Americans deserve "the full gamut of our legal system" (and I'm asking out of unfamiliarity with our legal system on this one).

Sending them to the Hague - yeah, real good. ~:rolleyes: What happened to Milosevich (sp)? Died in prison - from a heart attack. Before trial, if I remember correctly.

I'm leaning towards trying them all, but certainly not in the ICJ.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think GC is being deliberately concise in using the term American citizens for his arguments.

However, international law and the treaties that the US has signed up to (and in its glory days, helped codify and champion as standards of liberty and human rights) require proper trial or recognition, even of the non-citizens. I would prefer the use of the Hague, but would recognise US courts' competence as long as they were composed and run justly.

None of these 'military' panel fandangos, but with proper evidence, accountability and representation.

[Ser Clegane]

The people there are terrorist and you guys sympathize with them?:help: They want to kill me or convert me so....I don't care what happens to them. (I know this will get me flamed by all the bleeding hearts out there)


Many people don't seem to get that were playing for keeps in the war on terror.

There is an update that is interesting in the context of the above statement:

Dead detainee 'was to be freed' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm)


"We've just learned that one of the three people who killed himself was one of the 141 that we [the US] had scheduled to release.

"However our policy was we would refuse to tell people who were scheduled to be released until we had a location.

"So we had decided this was a safe person, free to be released, but we needed a country to send him to, and his despair was great enough and in his ignorance he went and killed himself."

[Fragony]

Aren't they technically prisoners of war? Since when are pow trialed, they get send back when the war is over. How suicide is an act of war is beyond me though.

[rory_20_uk]

Aha, well you see when the rules of war were drawn up we were still in the "line up into a long line and shoot the ones in a different uniform. Side with any uniforms left alive wins". It was an Empire vs Empire situation. To allow the general public to get involved would make it an unseemly scrap.

In warfare protagonists even thought that some weapons were "unsporting".

So, go on about 100 years. Things have strangely changed, but these archaic rules haven't. In broad terms we can still afford uniforms for all (sadly body armour and equipment isn't possible in the British Army), but other groups can't.

Under the rules of law they are not POWs as they aren't wearing a uniform and hence are playing unfairly.

Until the top brass realises that warfare isn't and to be honest never was a game of Rugger scaled up a bit such exact following of the rules can lead to these situations.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

Since these suicides are viewed by some muppets as an act of war , would it not be prudent to launch a counter strike , perhaps the backward Admiral can volunteer for the mission and sting himself up .
That would really show that they are serious in this war on terror .

[Hurin_Rules]

Aha, well you see when the rules of war were drawn up we were still in the "line up into a long line and shoot the ones in a different uniform. Side with any uniforms left alive wins". It was an Empire vs Empire situation. To allow the general public to get involved would make it an unseemly scrap.

In warfare protagonists even thought that some weapons were "unsporting".

So, go on about 100 years. Things have strangely changed, but these archaic rules haven't. In broad terms we can still afford uniforms for all (sadly body armour and equipment isn't possible in the British Army), but other groups can't.

Under the rules of law they are not POWs as they aren't wearing a uniform and hence are playing unfairly.

Until the top brass realises that warfare isn't and to be honest never was a game of Rugger scaled up a bit such exact following of the rules can lead to these situations.

~:smoking:

That's not entirely accurate. Firstly, most of the laws of war were drawn up in the 20th century, well after the days of 'line up in a long line'. By this point, many people had experience with partisan warfare, from the Ukranians and Yugoslavs in WWII even back to the war for Greek independence in the early part of the previous century. This idea that partisans are a new development in warfare is bunk.

Note also that you don't need a uniform to be considered a member of a militia. Redleg I'm sure could give you the chapter and verse on that one, but even by the existing laws of war, the Taleban were the recognized militia of Afghanistan and thus subject to the laws of war. They at least should be treated by POWs, although the situation gets admittedly murkier with Al Qaeda/Al Ansar etc.

The designation 'enemy combatant' is not something that is on a very sure legal footing. The Bush administration has been making a number of inferences and leaps in logic based on past precedent, but many of its critics disagree with its interpretation of the law.

At the very least, the Taleban deserve the protections of POW status, even according to the laws as they stand, and thus the Bush administration's actions are in violation of the laws of war.

[Hurin_Rules]

A good sound bite from the foreign minister of Luxembourg, responding to the US's characterization of the suicides as 'asymmetrical warfare' and a 'good PR move':



"It's hard to understand why when three people kill themselves, that is an attack on America. Something has to change in the American mentality," Jean Asselborn said, according to Reuters.


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/12/guantanamo.suicides/index.html

[rory_20_uk]

The line up in a long line mentality was present in WW1, and probably took time afterwards to fully dissapear.

Lots of partisans? The legend of King Arthur is thought to be based upon the concept. I know they're not new, but modern warfare has meant a 14 year old with a gun is a significant threat, and a unit of 10 can with limited equipment cause havoc. They have become more relevant.

I know you don't need a uniform, but without one you have to hope that the other side know what your insignia is. And since you've got no sure industrial base it has to be simple.

The combatants are either in a war or they're not. Hence they are either POWs with the rights thereof, or should be tried under civil law.

~:smoking:

[Slyspy]

If they are fighting in a war then they are POWs and accorded the necessary rights. If not then they are civilians, and should be treated as such.

[Tachikaze]

Another relevant article.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061206J.shtml

[Redleg]

That's not entirely accurate. Firstly, most of the laws of war were drawn up in the 20th century, well after the days of 'line up in a long line'. By this point, many people had experience with partisan warfare, from the Ukranians and Yugoslavs in WWII even back to the war for Greek independence in the early part of the previous century. This idea that partisans are a new development in warfare is bunk.

The Hague Convention of 1907 is still the primary document concerning the Rules of War - it was primarily based upon European Warfare of the late 19th Century. Somewhat dated.

The Geneva Conventions have had several rewrites where nations subscribe to different versions of them.

Personally I believe that the Rules of War and the Geneva Conventions need some serious updating, the methods of warfare have change significantly since the days of lining up to shoot at each other.




Note also that you don't need a uniform to be considered a member of a militia. Redleg I'm sure could give you the chapter and verse on that one, but even by the existing laws of war, the Taleban were the recognized militia of Afghanistan and thus subject to the laws of war. They at least should be treated by POWs, although the situation gets admittedly murkier with Al Qaeda/Al Ansar etc.

No need to cite chapter and verse - you have the intent of the Hague Convention down.



The designation 'enemy combatant' is not something that is on a very sure legal footing. The Bush administration has been making a number of inferences and leaps in logic based on past precedent, but many of its critics disagree with its interpretation of the law.

Correct it all stems from the use of enemy combatant to try spies and sabators in the United States that were caught blowing up a ship in the docks.



At the very least, the Taleban deserve the protections of POW status, even according to the laws as they stand, and thus the Bush administration's actions are in violation of the laws of war.

The Taliban were and are primarily held in Afganstan. Most of them were accord the status of POW. The individuals that are being sent to Gitmo fall into a different catergory, are some of them Taliban soldiers and leader's - the reports that I have read are unclear on that. The reports I have read point to foreign nationals fighting in Afganstan (references to AQ are most prevelant.)

Is the Bush Adminstration violating the laws of war in that regards - not so sure on that one. The Rules of War would have the individuals held in Gitmo given a summary courts martial and a summary execution on the battlefield,

There is some clear cut violations of the Geneva Conventions going on however.

[Hurin_Rules]

The Taliban were and are primarily held in Afganstan. Most of them were accord the status of POW. The individuals that are being sent to Gitmo fall into a different catergory, are some of them Taliban soldiers and leader's - the reports that I have read are unclear on that. The reports I have read point to foreign nationals fighting in Afganstan (references to AQ are most prevelant.)

Is the Bush Adminstration violating the laws of war in that regards - not so sure on that one. The Rules of War would have the individuals held in Gitmo given a summary courts martial and a summary execution on the battlefield,


But of course, we have to just take the Bush Administration's word that the people in Guantanamo are Al Qaeda, don't we? No one outside of the administration has seen any evidence supporting it, and their military tribunals have not yet been held (in some cases, after more than four years). I'm not even sure if they've rejected the allegation that some prisoners at Guantanamo are Taleban. Have they? I was under the impression that they'd admitted some were Taleban. If so, a summary court martial and execution would clearly be a violation of the laws of war.

[Redleg]

But of course, we have to just take the Bush Administration's word that the people in Guantanamo are Al Qaeda, don't we?


Until such evidence demonstrates that they are not - then one can only assume that the government is telling the truth. (or at least not lying.)


No one outside of the administration has seen any evidence supporting it, and their military tribunals have not yet been held (in some cases, after more than four years).

Incorrect yearly tribunials are being held to verify if the prisoner in question needs to remain at Gitmo. Now if your only speaking of military tribunials where charges are levied against the individual and judgement is made on those charges then you would be correct.

Military Tribunial covers a lot of terrority.



I'm not even sure if they've rejected the allegation that some prisoners at Guantanamo are Taleban. Have they?

Yes the silence on that would be telling. But the lack of a denial is not necessary proof of a lie.



I was under the impression that they'd admitted some were Taleban. If so, a summary court martial and execution would clearly be a violation of the laws of war.

Then a good thing the United States is sending them to GITMO to make sure before doing pursueing the course allowed under the Hague Convention of 1907. (Well in most instances any way. There are some grounds for concern about deaths in Afganstan that don't set well if one reviews the them. on some of them military charges have been applied to those who committed the acts, and on others nothing.)

[rory_20_uk]

Redleg, are you saying that the government is Innocent until proven guilty (and therefore the prisoners are guilty until proved innocent).

Seeing as how most have been there for years and so far no evidence has surfaced to even prove what they are in any other case they would be released. They've been effectively kidnapped for up to 4 years by a government.

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

Redleg, are you saying that the government is Innocent until proven guilty (and therefore the prisoners are guilty until proved innocent).

First you need to put the two sentence together to understand the statement


But of course, we have to just take the Bush Administration's word that the people in Guantanamo are Al Qaeda, don't we?



Until such evidence demonstrates that they are not - then one can only assume that the government is telling the truth. (or at least not lying.)


No proof of a lie is what I am saying. So one must take the statements at face value until proven otherwise.

Having looked into the prisoner records that I have access to on the internet - it does not lead to the conculsion that members of the Taliban are being held in GITMO, but foreign nationals fighting under a banner that was not of an armed national force or militia, assumed to be members of a criminal element.

Yes its innocent until proven guility, but even alledged dangerous criminals in most countries and held in prison until their trails are completed.



Seeing as how most have been there for years and so far no evidence has surfaced to even prove what they are in any other case they would be released. They've been effectively kidnapped for up to 4 years by a government.

~:smoking:

The fact that they were captured in Afganstan as foreign nationals not in the Afganstan Militia forces is enough to warrant their detaining and investigation into why they were there.

One can successfully argue that the United States government should not be taking four years to investigate and then try these individuals for violations of the laws of war and other criminal activity. One can also successful argue that due process is not being accorded to the individuals being held in Gitmo.

[Kralizec]

Note also that you don't need a uniform to be considered a member of a militia. Redleg I'm sure could give you the chapter and verse on that one, but even by the existing laws of war, the Taleban were the recognized militia of Afghanistan and thus subject to the laws of war. They at least should be treated by POWs, although the situation gets admittedly murkier with Al Qaeda/Al Ansar etc.

Having read the relevant treaties once, I do recall that it was explicitly mentioned that the enemy combatant required a uniform or something else that identifies him as such. I'll dig up some stuff on my bookshelf and see what I can find.

[rory_20_uk]

Are we talking a red armband with any clothing or does it have to be more standardised? How do different rebel groups accessorise? Should the Allies proclaim the dress code for the theatre [of operations]?

~:smoking:

[Beirut]

When reading that suicide is regarded as an act of war, I cannot help but think of Orwell.

Smith: Why don't you just shoot me?

O'Brien: We make the mind perfect before we blow it out.

[Redleg]

Are we talking a red armband with any clothing or does it have to be more standardised? How do different rebel groups accessorise? Should the Allies proclaim the dress code for the theatre [of operations]?

~:smoking:

THe answer is available by reading the Hague Conventions of 1907.

Foreign nationals fighting in Afganstan does not count as a sponatous uprisings of the people against a foreign invasion.

[Hurin_Rules]

One other interesting question: say even the tribunals determine that the charges of conspiracy, etc. do not have enough evidence for a conviction. As some of the prisoners' (American) military defenders have noted, they will not be released even if they are found not guilty of such crimes, since the US government still considers them dangerous offenders.

As one of the prisoners' defender said today, even if his client is acquitted, he'll be staying in Guantanamo bay.

[Redleg]

One other interesting question: say even the tribunals determine that the charges of conspiracy, etc. do not have enough evidence for a conviction. As some of the prisoners' (American) military defenders have noted, they will not be released even if they are found not guilty of such crimes, since the US government still considers them dangerous offenders.

As one of the prisoners' defender said today, even if his client is acquitted, he'll be staying in Guantanamo bay.

Then this would be clear cut evidence that the adminstration has committed an impeachable offense and have abused the Presidential Authority as granted by the constitution.

Then it will be up to legislative branch (congress) to impeach the President and the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court) to overturn such a presidential order as being unconstitutional.

But don't count on the United States Congress to show much of a backbone.

So the only hope would lie with the Supreme Court, which might be hard even for them to rule on it since in essence the issue deals with foreign nationals.

[Hurin_Rules]

So the only hope would lie with the Supreme Court, which might be hard even for them to rule on it since in essence the issue deals with foreign nationals.

True, though the Supreme Court's ruling on some of these issues is due this month. Should be interesting either way.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gelcube, I disagree here. As far as I know, no US citizens are being held in "Club Gitmo" and all have been accorded due process (though Padilla was held un-consitutionally for too long before this was rectified).

I do not see a compelling reason to extend the rights of due process accorded to a citizen of the USA to the detainees at Guantanamo.


Guantanamo holds relatively few prisoners, less than 1,000, with a lot of the previous detainees having been returned to Afghanistan as POWs or returned to other nations for the process of justice. A goodly number of those remaining are awaiting release when a country willing to take them under its aegis may be found.

Those still at Gitmo and labeled as "not-to-be-released" would, presumably, either have continuing intelligence value in the war on terror or have been active terrorist opponents of the USA or its allies -- or both. Can evidence corroborating this status be produced in an open forum without endangering the efforts to prosecute the WOT? I suspect not. Moreover, it is unlikely that all of the individuals being held are being held based on evidence that would stand up in an American, British, or Dutch (for examples) court -- defense attornies work very hard at establishing an extremely rigid standard for such evidence but the intelligence apparatus can rarely provide such definitive information (remember assessments of Iraqi weapons prior to the invasion).

And that is the trouble. World opinion, rightly mis-liking anything that appears cruel, unfair or unjust, is likely to be skeptical until compelling evidence is made available confirming the iniquities of the individuals being held. Such evidence may be difficult to confirm in a conclusive fashion and/or end up hurting intelligence efforts.

Does this mean that the only moral response is to apply the standards that most Western courts apply to their own citizens and release these individuals if the coalition authorities are unable or unwilling to produce compelling evidence?

[Joker85]

Yeah, what idiots! Who in their right mind would believe members of a certain religion would use suicide of all things as a weapon! Think about it! Suicide?!

:dizzy2:














:idea2:

[Papewaio]

I do not see a compelling reason to extend the rights of due process accorded to a citizen of the USA to the detainees at Guantanamo.
...

Does this mean that the only moral response is to apply the standards that most Western courts apply to their own citizens and release these individuals if the coalition authorities are unable or unwilling to produce compelling evidence?

A good reason would be that by having an obvious double standard you splinter your allies and unite your opposition.

Going into Iraq to create a westernised nation (read democratic, human rights, trades with you) while at the same time denying human rights to people on the basis of not being from the USA is rank hypocracy.

One of the primary pillars of Western society is western law. And part of that is innocent until proven guilty.

If the intelligence community was so good at finding information there wouldn't have been a 9/11 in the first place nor the bombing of the barracks in Beirut. The only successful side of their track record is in creating long term enemies of the US... trained Al Qaeda's cohorts in Afghanistan, supplied the Contras, mucked around in Vietnam or any of a dozen other things that that have tainted.

Making the military independent and superior to civilian law and not allowing trial by jury is enough to make a civilised nation revolt against even the mightest army of its time...

[Duke of Gloucester]

I do not see a compelling reason to extend the rights of due process accorded to a citizen of the USA to the detainees at Guantanamo.

How about:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.."

or

"No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

[Tribesman]

How about:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.."

You don't understand the situation Duke , the emerging state was short of ink .

[rory_20_uk]

The answer is available by reading the Hague Conventions of 1907.

Foreign nationals fighting in Afganstan does not count as a sponatous uprisings of the people against a foreign invasion.

That was 100 years ago, during an age when things are accelerating at a pace never seen before. Such laws are obviously utterly out of date, not to mention the clear vested interest of the powers that decided such laws.

One can't fight for such high values as peace and justice if then one achieves this by basing it on interpretation of the law, as well as others 100 years old.

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

That was 100 years ago, during an age when things are accelerating at a pace never seen before. Such laws are obviously utterly out of date, not to mention the clear vested interest of the powers that decided such laws.

One can't fight for such high values as peace and justice if then one achieves this by basing it on interpretation of the law, as well as others 100 years old.

~:smoking:

Again foreign nationals do not count as a spontatous uprising of the people against a foreign invasion and occupation, and I don't see that changing. This was geared toward preventing mercs and criminals from having free reign in areas where combat was happening. If one wants to become part of the defense of another nation - then one should join the national army or militia of that land, not just decide to band together with a bunch of like minded thugs to steal from the citizens of that land.

If you read an earlier statement - I clearly stated that the Hague Conventions and the Genva Conventions are dated and need some serious updating.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pappy, DofG, Tribe':

Is it safe to assume that you folks believe that only the following choices constitute the morally and politically appropriate handling of the detainees at Guantanamo?

1. Prosecute them, without further delay, as alleged criminals under the laws of the United States with all attendant rules of evidence, procedure, representation, etc.

2. Return (extradite) them immediately to the country of capture for criminal prosecution under the laws and procedures of that juridiction.

3. Assign them status as Prisoners of War with all rights thereunto appertaining (including limitations on interrogation, visitation and the like). In a strictly legalistic sense, since there is no declared war against another sovereign power at this time, these individuals would need to be returned to their country of origin unless that country asked for them to be held as a POW pursuant to the War on Terror.

4. Release them: a) to their country of origin, b) to the country wherein they were apprehended, or c) unconditionally.


Note: I think the above is an exhaustive list of options aside from retaining them in detainee status, of which you clearly disapprove, but add any I may have missed.

[Papewaio]

1. They could stay detainees at Guantanamo if they were being prosecuted.

2. No, not after the way other prisoners were 'given air' after being put in cargo containers. There is a certain duty of care now leveled at the jailers who have to make sure that justice can be done. This includes that if released the process does not endanger the lives of the ex-prisoners in a manner that circumvents the rule of law.

3. Some may indeed be POWs. If so they should be treated as such.

4. Releasing them to their country of origin as per all British citizens? Well justice should be swift and seen to be done... it also should be impartial. So when playing favourites by keeping some countries citizens and releasing others, justice certainly it is not.

I would expect them to be treated like either civilian prisoners or POWs now that they are prisoners. I would expect that whatever rights both civilians and POWs have that these prisoners would also have. A right to know what they have been persecuted with, a trial by jury and fair representation.

[Hurin_Rules]

Just checked:

96 of the 460 (or so) prisoners at Guantanamo are Afghanis.

Seems to suggest many of them are Taleban, not Al Qaeda, given that at the time most of them were captured, the estimated size of all of Al Qaeda itself was only a few hundred. The article from which I took this information also suggests many of them are Taleban:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13312717/from/RS.2/

[Redleg]

Just checked:

96 of the 460 (or so) prisoners at Guantanamo are Afghanis.

Then that would require the United States to have crediable evidence that the Afganstan citizens were part of the criminal element captured on the battlefield. The tribunals should indicate that either the individual was directly associated with Al Qaeda, or was performing a criminal act when caught. Either way 96 individuals should have been accorded POW status until evidence indicated that they were not acting in accordance with the Rules of War.

Some of the more reports I have just read after you posted Hurin indicates that the government is changing part of the definition once again - which would indicate that just maybe they are attempting to hide something.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/d20060215legalbasis.pdf

Since its a PDF file I will cut and paste the new justification - my thoughts on the area are in blue


The United States and its coalition partners are engaged in a war against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their affiliates and supporters. There is no question that under the law of war the United States has the authority to detain persons who have engaged in unlawful belligerence for the duration of
hostilities, without charges or trial. Like all wars, we do not know when this one will end. Nevertheless, we may detain combatants until the end of the war. THis is correct under what I know of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Genva Conventions

Detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not an act of punishment. It is a matter of security and military necessity, and has long been recognized as legitimate under international law. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), specifically recognized the authority of the President to detain persons who fought with the Taliban and al Qaida against the United States. Detaining enemy combatants prevents them from returning to the battlefield and engaging in further armed attacks against innocent civilians and U.S. and Coalition forces. Furthermore, detention serves as a deterrent against future attacks by denying the enemy the fighters needed to conduct war. Releasing enemy combatants before the end of hostilities and allowing them to rejoin the fight could prolong the conflict and further endanger U.S. and Coalition forces and innocent civilians. Looks Technically correct - but international law does not necessary require that enemy combatants that are POW's can be removed to extra-ordinary prison camps. The historical precedent for removing POW's from the combat area can be seen from WW2 when German Prisoners were transported to the United States and elsewhere.

There is no requirement under the law of war that a detaining power charge enemy combatants with crimes, or give them lawyers or access to the courts in order to challenge their detention. To the extent that enemy combatants have committed offenses under the law of war, a detaining power may choose to try them. The law of war, which includes the Geneva Conventions, recognizes that military fora may be used to try persons who engage in belligerent acts in contravention of the law of war. The United States and many other nations have used military commissions throughout history; military commissions have an established and legitimate place in the law of war. Here is where I find a major problem. The Geneva convention does require the holding power to charge the individual before detaining him seperately and removing him from POW status to just prisoner. THe Hague Convention of 1907 also has a stipulation about the catergory the United States is using - and that is the summary court held when the individual is captured, one can read that as a Military Tribunial if one desires.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 accords POW status generally only to enemy forces that follow certain rules: being commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; having a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; carrying arms openly; and conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. The President determined that although the Geneva Convention applies to Taliban detainees, such detainees are not entitled to POW status. As explained by the White House Press Secretary on February 7, 2002: “Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, . . . Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status . . . . The Taliban have
not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Regarding al Qaeda, the statement continues: “Al Qaeda is an international terrorist group and
cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention. Its members, therefore, are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to POW status under the treaty.” 1 I stand corrected about an earlier statement - where it was my belief that no Taliban militia was being held at Gitmo. The adminstration is clearly oversteping the normal interpation of both the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions as it applies to Afganstan citizens that were only serving within the Taliban. To justify holding those individuals - the adminstration and the military has the onus to provide evidence that those individuals committed violations of the rules of war and criminal acts while in the combat zone. This normally means the holding power follows the guidelines in the Geneva Convention. Charges have to be levied to demonstrate that the Members of the Taliban were not acting in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Even if detainees were entitled to POW status, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the opportunity to be released prior to the end of hostilities. Nothing in the Third Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights, and POWs in past wars have generally not been given these rights. For more information on the legal framework for the Global War on Terror and DoD Detention
policy, see http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=1559
I wonder why they put this statement in - looks and smells like the standard beuracrat cover your ass statement. ie so what if we are wrong in our interpation of the Geneva Convention - the detainees are not entitled to legal protection after all. Technically correct - but smells of something bad.






Now the problem we face is that we can not access the evidence used in the Tribunals.
Here is what the Department of Defense does have posted on it.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/commissions.html

THey have also posted effective 10 Jun 2006 that all scheduled hearings are postponed indefinitly - I wonder if this is because of the up coming Supreme Court Ruling or for some other reason.

[Redleg]

It looks like the Bush Adminstration has worked out a deal with the new Afganstan government to return all 96 Afgan citizens - many of them for trail it would seem from reading the report.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060614/2006-06-14T200224Z_01_N14437468_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-GUANTANAMO-AFGHAN-DC.html