Printable View
I didnt say they were all worthy of that treatment however according to the law we could have killed them . Once more their lucky to be alive.Quote:
Considering a number have already been released, it seems that the people at Gitmo are not 100% worthy of this treatment and death.
Im against the death penalty.Quote:
Iff they are guilty it maybe better treatment then they deserve to live for them, it would be worse treatment to yourself to kill them.
Likewise I don't believe in the death penalty, I do believe in harsh sentences.
So if they are terrorists who claim to be Muslims then I would make them pig herders for the rest of their days. Harsh but fitting.
The Gitmo detainees eat better than I do:
www.house.gov/hasc/pressr...O-menu.pdf
I wonder if the Marines in Fallujah are as well taken care of.
One more time:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Marines in Fallujah = volunteers
Detainees in Gitmo = held illegally against their will
And at any rate, it's very easy to release a menu to the press to show how humane you are. It's another thing altogether to deliver on that humanity.
One more timeQuote:
Detainees in Gitmo = held illegally against their will
You cant back that up.
Against their will? That's obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Illegally? Certainly in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate that fair and competent tribunals must be held to determine the status of prisoners taken in a war if there is any doubt about said status. This applies to militia forces such as the Taleban, just as it would apply to American militia forces. Illegally according to US law? Most likely. The supreme court has ruled that the prisoners have the right to challenge their detention, even thoughthe Bush administration initially denied them this right, and the cases are making their way throught the courts.
So yes, both illegally and against their will.
1) It doesn't apply to combatants not in uniform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
2) If it did, they could be executed for being spies.
I'm pretty sure this was already stated in this thread.
Does the Geneva Convention apply to a party if the other party has already broken faith with it?
These guys never signed it in the first place. Their not an army or attached to an army. Their forigen fighters in a forign war breaking almost every rule of the Geneva Convention. Again according to the Convention they could have been executed as spies or sabatoers.Quote:
Does the Geneva Convention apply to a party if the other party has already broken faith with it?
Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).
To tell the truth and I believe Pindar has explained this no one is bond by the convention. It is to me more like a curtesy. The whole reason nations sign these things is to protect their own troops if captured. Its not out of some noble concern for the enemy.Quote:
Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).
If given a choice between going to gitmo and joining the army, which would you choose?
Gitmo ~;)
Fair enough. Not me.
Well maybe the army but certainly not the Marines ~;) I know at my age I couldnt make it through bootcamp again. Id rather retire to gitmo. Have you seen the menu and the soccer field or the day room with all the chess sets. I saw the cells last night and even the high security ones wwere nicer than any Ive been in. ~:)Quote:
Fair enough. Not me.
Gawain,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I know this may not be the right thread and this all has been discussed before. But I still do not understand it and I do not want to starta new thread (who knows what would happen there - sigh!)
If memory serves the situation in Afgansistan was:
- Taliban was ruling; Talibans included a lot of foreigners that once came to fight the Soviets; I am not sure if the Taliban was really a regular army but I guess it is a fact that they ruled.
- There was Al Kaida with all their training camps
- There were also warlords that controlled parts of the country and were more or less allied with the Taliban
If I am right all three kinds of groups fought against the US and their allies.
When the US attacked was there a declaration of war?
Most of the ground units were warlords as well, so more rebels than a regular army. And there were special forces of the US. And if memory serves there were even undercover platoons.
Which one of these forces would you call illegal combatants? In my opinion you could do this with every group except the US special forces.
Any who dont meet this criteriaQuote:
Which one of these forces would you call illegal combatants? In my opinion you could do this with every group except the US special forces.
Everyone else is an Illegal combatant like those in Gitmo.Quote:
Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or 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.
A combatant who has surrendered or been captured becomes a prisoner of war (POW).
If there is any doubt as to whether the person is a lawful combatant they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue. Combatants who may be deemed to be unlawful combatants include, spies, mercenaries, members of militias not under the command of the armed forces who do not fit into the categories specified above, and those who have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
Most unlawful combatants qualify for protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) until they have had a "fair and regular trial". Once found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was the Mercenary trial in Angola in June, 1976.
For those countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I) the definition of lawful combatant is altered by
Article 44 .3
...Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly::
( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
How can anyone complain about the other side breaking the convention and then turn around and do the same thing? If one side breaks it and the other one follows, how can they then use the convention as justification for anything? Does it really matter who did it first if both sides throw it out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
In what sense do the Taleban militia of Afghanistan not fit these definitions?
In short, yes, they do have to abide by it. They have signed the agreement to abide by the terms. It is essentially them saying, there are certain basic human rights we will afford to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Article 44 .3
...Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly::
( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Let me summarize:
Every AQ and Taliban fighter is not illegal as long as he carried his weapons openly? And every illegal fighter did hidden attacks?
So - in Gitmo there are no AQ and Talibans who carried the weapons openly!
What happened to them, if the US had arrested them? Are they free now or in a POW camp? Why did the US not shoot all the others after a short military trial? I guess Germany would have!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
...huh? It's an agreement between two signatory parties. Not a treaty with 'everyone in existence.'
Nice try. They have to have always carried their weapons openly, never have attacked civilians, never have carried out hidden attacks and otherwise followed all the other rules of war. You cant just greab a gun surrender and say you carried your weapons openly. Im sure all those there are believed to have done something that qualifies them as illegal combatants. As much as everyone bitches all these people were vetted by a military tribunal and thats why their there. They didnt just pick them out of a hat.Quote:
Every AQ and Taliban fighter is not illegal as long as he carried his weapons openly? And every illegal fighter did hidden attacks?
So - in Gitmo there are no AQ and Talibans who carried the weapons openly!
Im sure all those there are believed to have done something that qualifies them as illegal combatants.
Of course I respect your believe. But I'd prefer the decition of a judge.
But lets assume all the prisoners in Gitmo are illegal. Then I have to revise my opinion; it is not bad, it is stupid. You should have killed them all!
But again, what happened to the AQs that fought openly.
P.S.: All the time I see a video of Bin Ladn he is carrying a gun. I guess he is afraid to be called illegal combatant :rifle: .
Were talking legality here not what you would prefer. Accorrding to the Geneva convention they are not entitled to a trial in a US court as you say.Quote:
Of course I respect your believe. But I'd prefer the decition of a judge.
Quote:
But lets assume all the prisoners in Gitmo are illegal. Then I have to revise my opinion; it is not bad, it is stupid. You should have killed them all!
AQ is a terrorist organization. Again just because you have a gun in your hand when captured doesnt mean you fit that criteria. They are not a militia, have no insignia and attack civilians as a way of life. They meet few if any of the criteria.Quote:
But again, what happened to the AQs that fought openly.
Read the above.Quote:
P.S.: All the time I see a video of Bin Ladn he is carrying a gun. I guess he is afraid to be called illegal combatant
[QUOTE=Gawain of Orkeny]
AQ is a terrorist organization. Again just because you have a gun in your hand when captured doesnt mean you fit that criteria. They are not a militia, have no insignia and attack civilians as a way of life. They meet few if any of the criteria.[QUOTE]
So if one was trained in an AQ camp when the US attacked and he fought the US with a gun in his hand, being too busy to attack any civilists at that time, then he would be a POW and a criminal; but he would not be send to Gitmo, right?
That would be up to the tribunal. They could probably classify him as a member of AQ and that could be enough to put him there. I dont have the details on each and everycase nor does anyone outside of US inteligence. Again a tribunal reviewed them and assigned them to Gitmo.Quote:
So if one was trained in an AQ camp when the US attacked and he fought the US with a gun in his hand, being too busy to attack any civilists at that time, then he would be a POW and a criminal; but he would not be send to Gitmo, right?
Bingo. There's your problem, brilliantly exposed in one sentence.Quote:
I dont have the details on each and everycase nor does anyone outside of US inteligence.
Would you say, in light of their track record in recent years, that US (or UK) Intelligence was exactly a RELIABLE agency? :no:
Of course, we'll never know will we. Thats the beauty of being a spook, you can be wholly incompetent and its contrary to national security for anyone to find out.
The Geneva convention doesnt require us to share that information with anyone. It requires they go begore a military tribunal which was done. The problem once more is that we didnt kill them in the first place.Quote:
Bingo. There's your problem, brilliantly exposed in one sentence.
AS I said they were vetted there by a military tribunal not the CIA or US inteligence.Quote:
Would you say, in light of their track record in recent years, that US (or UK) Intelligence was exactly a RELIABLE agency?
Do you have any idea of how many things that applies too?Quote:
Of course, we'll never know will we. Thats the beauty of being a spook, you can be wholly incompetent and its contrary to national security for anyone to find out.
No, it says a fair and competent tribunal. The tribunals at Gitmo most definitely do not meet that standard. The lawyers originally appointed to the detainees were fired when they pointed out that the tribunals were inherently unfair. One of the 'judges' admitted he had never read the Geneva Conventions. There is no standard procedure here, and not even an attempt to give the defendents a chance to see all the evidence against them. They are kangaroo courts in the truest sense of the word, and everyone knows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny