CIA runs network of secret prisons

[Hurin_Rules]

Another issue is that if true, these actions of CIA operatives would be against US law and against international treaties the US has signed and is morally and legally obligated to uphold.

Former Republican senator and prosecutor Bob Barr is the one who points this out in this article:

EU looks into 'secret CIA jails'

Thursday, November 3, 2005 Posted: 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European Commission has said it will look into reports that the CIA set up secret jails for al Qaeda captives in eastern Europe.

The governments of the European Union's 25 members nations will be informally questioned about the allegations, a spokesman said on Thursday.

Friso Roscam Abbing, the EU's spokesman on Justice, Freedom and Security, told CNN he had "seen reports on allegations made by Human Rights Watch" but said the EU needed to get clarification from its member states before deciding its next move.

"As far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned ... it is clear that all 25 member states having signed up to European Convention on Human Rights, and to the International Convention Against Torture, are due to respect and fully implement the obligations deriving from those treaties," The Associated Press quoted Roscam Abbing as saying.

U.S. officials have refused to comment on the accuracy of a Washington Post report that top al Qaeda suspects were being held for questioning "at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe."

But U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley said President George W. Bush had demanded that U.S. agents treat prisoners "in a way that is consistent with our values and principles."

"Some people say that the test of your principles is what you do when no one's looking," Hadley said.

"The president has insisted that whether it is in the public or it is in private, the same principles will apply and the same principles will be respected," he said.

"To the extent people do not meet up, measure up to those principles, there will be accountability." The Post cited U.S. officials and those from other governments familiar with the arrangement for its report.

The network, the Washington Post said, was "a central element" in the CIA's battle against terrorism, but its existence was known to only a handful of officials at home and abroad.

If true, the arrangement suggests U.S. agents are engaged in activities "that under U.S. law and in U.S. territory and by U.S. personnel would be clearly illegal," said former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, who was once a federal prosecutor.

"There are very serious questions also that what's going on here is also contrary to documents and treaties that the U.S. is a party to," the former congressman from Georgia told CNN.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also joined the chorus of calls for access to all foreign terrorism suspects held by the U.S. (Full story)

"We are concerned at the fate of an unknown number of people captured as part of the so-called global war on terror and held at undisclosed places of detention," Antonella Notari, chief ICRC spokeswoman, told Reuters in response to a question.

"Access to detainees is an important humanitarian priority for the ICRC and a logical continuation of our current work in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay," she added.

Poland and Romania, close U.S. allies in ex-communist central Europe, on Thursday denied suggestions by the New York-based Human Rights Watch that they were among countries hosting secret Central Intelligence Agency detention centers.

"There are no CIA bases in Romania," Romanian Prime Minister Calin Tariceanu told reporters, Reuters said

Former Polish defense minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski also denied the report as did a senior security official from the new government which took over on Monday.

"Holding foreign nationals on Polish territory would be illegal," the official told Reuters.

"I don't think any Polish government would want to do that," he said, adding that a government statement would follow later on Thursday.

Szmajdzinski ruled out any detention of such suspects in Poland. "We aren't detaining terrorists, or interrogating them, or doing anything else with them," he told private Radio Zet.

Copyright 2005 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...cia/index.html

[Slyspy]

"Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long."

Seems to me that facilities such as these are necessary in warfare and spycraft, both of which we are heavily involved in at the current time. While I certainly have problems with the way we have acted lately, I do not doubt that our intelligence agencies need to interrogate people in secure facilities to maintain the safety of the nation and our troops. Given that the above quote states that nothing is known about who is kept there and what is being done, I will not raise my voice in protest. Until someone shows me evidence of abuse that is not necessary for our security, I do not have a problem with this.

Then you are a fool.

[Slyspy]

Im not the one so presumptuous as to become offended and speak for the american people. It makes you not only a drama queen, but extremely arrogant.

And if we are playing the name game, putting the safety of the enemy above your own countrymen makes you the worst kind of american, a traitor. This isnt The Bold and The Beautiful, there are american lives at stake.

And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".

[Divinus Arma]

I understand PanzerJager's point on this. He is simply stating that it is better to kill the enemy en masse rather than lose a single American. I tend to agree with this statement.

I also undertsand Gelatinous Cube and Co.'s arguments. He is basing his percpertion on Ben Frankilin's famous quote (reitereated by Papewaio), "He who trades freedom for security deserves neither".

These two arguments are not mutually exclusive and I don't understand how either of you can compare the two. Panzer's statement is a support for "aggresive defense" policy. Cube's statement is support for individual freedom at the cost of public safety.

I agree with both. And I can do so because we are not talking about American Citizens here. These are foreign combatants operating in the next evolution of warfare. We do need to take drastic offensive measures to secure American interests against the deception aggression tactics of the modern era. That debate is one our inherent morality.

I am inclined to allow greater liberties in interogation to be taken with the enemy than we would allow for citizens. That really is the bottom line. Do we have a moral obligation to treat the enemy as if they were American citizens?

[Divinus Arma]

Then you are a fool

And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".

I have no problem with minor attacks like this since it adds color to the backroom, but I would expect a supporting argument from you as to why someone is a fool, or whatever.

Not a big deal, but let's hear logic and reason to support the statement. Pointless flaming like this brings down the quality of the debate.

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

[Hurin_Rules]

These are foreign combatants operating in the next evolution of warfare.

Ah, but there's the rub, oh Divine One. No one has ever proven that they were actually 'operating' or fighting at all. Some are undoubtedly Taleban--who were not fighting in the next generation of war but were simply poorly led militia troops fighting in an ancient fashion. These are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Many of the detainees at Guantanamo were released--although after two or three years--when the Americans finally realized they were not Al-Qaeda. But to detain a Taleban militia soldier in a secret prison, without a fair tribunal and possibly with torture, is a violation of the conventions, international law, treaties the USA has signed and basic human morality.

You may have a point about Al-Qaeda troops. But how do we know innocents aren't being locked up and tortured as well? Are we just to accept the word of a government that has been rocked by scandals from Abu Ghraib to Bagram air base to Guantanamo bay? Are we to believe on faith a government whose senior officials are currently under federal indictments, and whose graindiose claims about WMDs, links to Al-Qaeda and yellow cake from Niger have all been proven false?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

hippy

[Adrian II]

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

Craven canker-blossom. Gorbellied moldwarp. Odiferous, swag-bellied skainsmate.

[Divinus Arma]

you wrote a post that was... ahhh screw it...


spammer

[Divinus Arma]

I feel at though I am standing on the edge of a cliff... looking hwere this thread is going.

echo


echo


echo


echo

[Tribesman]

How can these people be described as illegal combatants ?
They are fighting at the request of a democraticaly elected leader .

[yesdachi]

I feel at though I am standing on the edge of a cliff... looking hwere this thread is going.

… perhaps to a cold war era black ops prison in an undisclosed European country where apple pie American values are ignored?

[Slyspy]

I have no problem with minor attacks like this since it adds color to the backroom, but I would expect a supporting argument from you as to why someone is a fool, or whatever.

Not a big deal, but let's hear logic and reason to support the statement. Pointless flaming like this brings down the quality of the debate.

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

Alright. Tin Cow can see no problem with setting up prisons in foreign lands where secrecy rules and in which the CIA can get up to whatever it wants. The inmates at these locations are not known nor, I suspect, do they have any legal or humanitarian contacts. Tin Cow assumes these people to be guilty of something (what exactly is a secret) merely because the CIA has them in custody. In fact, by the laws of his own country they are guilty of nothing until proven so in court. Up until then they should have the rights of the accused. The whole concept violates (rapes might be the term to use) the principles upon which American justice is based. These principles are the very same ones which the West asks the world to aspire to. Therefore I call him a fool because he declares his support for facilities which piss all over the very principles which his country purports to uphold.

As for Panzer. Well if his ideals reflect then American way then I have been sadly misled. I always thought justice and fairness to be admirable features of America as a whole. When someone who has just a little too much admiration for Nazi (sorry, Prussian) Germany starts talking about traitors and dealing with enemies of the state I hope you will forgive me for believe his opinions to be non-representative.

Maybe I am wrong. It has been known.

PS If we were talking about my country I would be just as disgusted. In fact I would be a fool to suspect that such places to not exist. If they did not we would probably borrow yours. That does not make it right and decent. Nor is it worth fighting for.

[TinCow]

Tin Cow assumes these people to be guilty of something (what exactly is a secret) merely because the CIA has them in custody. In fact, by the laws of his own country they are guilty of nothing until proven so in court. Up until then they should have the rights of the accused.

Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?

[Tribesman]

Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?

Its the law , do you have a problem with the law ?

[TinCow]

Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?

Its the law , do you have a problem with the law ?

Actually, that's not the law. POWs and irregular foreign hostiles (I originally referred to them as terrorists, but that's not entirely accurate and I don't know exactly what to call them) are not covered by the US Criminal Code.

[Tribesman]

Actually, that's not the law. POWs and terrorists are not covered by the US Criminal Code.
Irrelevant if it is in the US criminal code or not ( terrorism is covered anyhow , though of course there will be problems over jurisdiction in these cases). The US is obliged to follow laws that it has agreed to .
You cannot determine if they are terrorists or POWs without a hearing , at a hearing they are entitled to a defense . As they are your prisoners you have to supply their defense . Its the law , do you have a problem with it ?

To one of your earlier posts....
The locations where top Nazis were being held after capture were not freely disclosed to anyone that asked.
But their locations where disclosed and access granted to those that had a legal right to it , like the Red Cross .
Is that true in this case .....No .

[Kanamori]

Actually, that's not the law. POWs and terrorists are not covered by the US Criminal Code.

does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist.

[Goofball]

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

Craven canker-blossom. Gorbellied moldwarp. Odiferous, swag-bellied skainsmate.

Blouse-wearing poodle-walker.

[TinCow]

Irrelevant if it is in the US criminal code or not ( terrorism is covered anyhow , though of course there will be problems over jurisdiction in these cases). The US is obliged to follow laws that it has agreed to .
You cannot determine if they are terrorists or POWs without a hearing , at a hearing they are entitled to a defense . As they are your prisoners you have to supply their defense . Its the law , do you have a problem with it ?

We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial. We are talking about holding them for questioning and interrogation. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict without access to legal counsel. They most certainly may not be abused and must be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, but by no means do they have any rights to access to the justice system. 'Irregular Hostiles' (again, for lack of the proper term) have even fewer rights and may or may not be covered by the Geneva Convetion.

Either way, they may be held without trial and without legal representation for the duration of the conflict. After this point they must be released or tried in open court for their crimes. The conflict is clearly still going on and as such we have not reached a point at which they are given access to the court system.

does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist.

I do not know the answer to this.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial. We are talking about holding them for questioning and interrogation. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict without access to legal counsel. They most certainly may not be abused and must be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, but by no means do they have any rights to access to the justice system. 'Irregular Hostiles' (again, for lack of the proper term) have even fewer rights and may or may not be covered by the Geneva Convetion.

Either way, they may be held without trial and without legal representation for the duration of the conflict. After this point they must be released or tried in open court for their crimes. The conflict is clearly still going on and as such we have not reached a point at which they are given access to the court system.

How long can you hold people for questionning and interogation without it being jailing them de facto? I guess that some are hold since end of 2001...

On the status question; there are one issue: who decides if they are POW, illegal combattants, or just plain criminal?

If they were POW in the war with Afghanistan, well, that war is over, so either they are fred, or there is a specific charge to be made; then set up a tribunal to judge them.

Since you mention "duration of the conflict": I don't remember the USA being at war with anyone currently: war in Afghanistan is over, war in Iraq is over. On a judicial ground, occupation is not conflict, and ought not to stop you from releasing POW. So which conflict are you referring to?

Louis,

[Redleg]

We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial. We are talking about holding them for questioning and interrogation. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict without access to legal counsel. They most certainly may not be abused and must be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, but by no means do they have any rights to access to the justice system. 'Irregular Hostiles' (again, for lack of the proper term) have even fewer rights and may or may not be covered by the Geneva Convetion.

The term you are looking for is illegal combatants sometimes the term unlawful combatants is also used - it dates back to World War 2 when two spies were executed by the United States for activities conducted on United States soil.

The matter in which the individual is determined if he or she is an illegal combatant is through a military tribunal - or if you want to look at the Hague Conventions - a summary court martial also works. I won't mentioned what a summary court martial on the battlefield entails if your found guilty.

Either way, they may be held without trial and without legal representation for the duration of the conflict. After this point they must be released or tried in open court for their crimes. The conflict is clearly still going on and as such we have not reached a point at which they are given access to the court system.

Actually they can be tried during the conflict - but its up to the holding power to decide which is it going to do.

Originally Posted by Kanamori
does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist

I refer to the two German Spies executed in the United States during WW2 for acts of sabatage (SP) on US soil. THey were tried as illegal combatants and I believe hung when they were convicted.

[Papewaio]

I am inclined to allow greater liberties in interogation to be taken with the enemy than we would allow for citizens. That really is the bottom line. Do we have a moral obligation to treat the enemy as if they were American citizens?

As Nazi Germany became powerful people fled from them. Particularly scientists. Where did the majority of these scientists flee to? Why did they choose their location?

The Manhatten Project was possible because the scientists saw USA as having the moral high ground. USA has had a lot of power, it became a superpower. Why did the West Support USA above USSR? USA was seen as holding up the flag for moral virtues.

The Declaration of Independance is a beautiful document to read. Living up to its standards has won USA many many friends.

On the other hand Nazi Germany is still remembered for its atrocities, its torturing of prisoners, its biased courts. USSR is still remembered for its Gulags.

“In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists, and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I was a Protestant, so I did not speak up. And then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for anyone.”

USA has been seen as the champion of underdogs. Give us your poor, your huddled masses...

=][=
I say have Senate Oversight.

Do the equivalent of a Nuremburg trial. Go the full distance. I don't mind if you sentence them to pig herders, or execute them, or do something that is particularly bad according to their twisted faith. As long as they have all the access to the normal assets of justice, a trial by jury, right of appeal. BTW is a confession by torture admissible in a court?

By becoming them, they win. By becoming barbarians, they win. By twisting our own philosophy to match thier twisted one, they win. Nor can you outsource torture to someone else, the atrocities are on the hands of all.

We win by doing what we do best. It might be slower, but it gathers momentum and has a far longer lasting positive outcome.

The moral high ground is what you need to gain, and like any strategic point it might be costly to do so. Do not become the depraved enemy if you wish to win the hearts and minds of everyone else.

[Redleg]

How long can you hold people for questionning and interogation without it being jailing them de facto? I guess that some are hold since end of 2001...

Those captured in the war zone fighting against the opposing army can be held indefinitely until such a time that the conflict is resolved, a prisoner exchange is done, or they are paroled - normally with the promise never to take arms up again under penality of death if captured. (an old tradition not really done any longer0

On the status question; there are one issue: who decides if they are POW, illegal combattants, or just plain criminal?

Easy one - the force that captured them of course. Also the status is defined in both the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions.

If they were POW in the war with Afghanistan, well, that war is over, so either they are fred, or there is a specific charge to be made; then set up a tribunal to judge them.

Tribunals have been done - the standard in which they have been conducted might be subject to questioning - but they prisoners in GITMO have had at least one Tribunal. Now since they were captured as part of the war against terror - specially AQ - the war is not done - therefor they can remain as prisoners. The only prisoners that would be a violation of the conventions would be Militia from Afganstan who are Afganstan citizens that are still being held.

Since you mention "duration of the conflict": I don't remember the USA being at war with anyone currently: war in Afghanistan is over, war in Iraq is over. On a judicial ground, occupation is not conflict, and ought not to stop you from releasing POW. So which conflict are you referring to?

Louis,

On a judicial ground occupation is part of the conflict - the rules of war still apply. To show that occupations means that the rules don't apply will take some convincing besides just a statement - what documents what treaties, what international law are you refering to?

When you annex the terrority into your country - the occupation is over and normal civil code applies. When the occupiers leave and return the country to the civilian authority is when any militia or legal combatant must be released - until then they can be held.

I refer to the Hague Convention of 1907

Art. 20.
After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible.
.........

SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY
OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Art. 44.
A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense.

Art. 45.
It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.

Art. 46.
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 47.
Pillage is formally forbidden.

Art. 48.
If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound.

Art. 49.
If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question.

Art. 50.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

Art. 51.
No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief.

The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force.

For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors.

Art. 52.
Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.

Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.

Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

Art. 53.
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.

All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

Art. 54.
Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Art. 56.
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

Now where in the duties of the occupier does it state you must release any prisoners captured during the fighting? If the occupying power is still involved in conflict - there is not a requirement to immediately release prisoners.

[Papewaio]

Now since they were captured as part of the war against terror - specially AQ - the war is not done - therefor they can remain as prisoners. The only prisoners that would be a violation of the conventions would be Militia from Afganstan who are Afganstan citizens that are still being held.

a) Wouldn't this require that AQ be identified as a state or government?
b) So that the government could declare war against it?
c) Is there a formal declaration of war against AQ?

Sure it makes good print to say War on Terrorism. But has Congress actually declared War on AQ?

[Tribesman]

Kanamori
does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent?
They are entitled to POW status if they are a soldier , civilian , combatant or non combatant , until there is a tribunal to determine their status .


Tincow
We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial.
They are in detention so they have the rights of detainees , sentencing is irrelevant to those rights .
Its the law

Louis
Since you mention "duration of the conflict": I don't remember the USA being at war with anyone currently: war in Afghanistan is over, war in Iraq is over.
What about Korea , that is still a war , but strictly speaking that is the UN not the US .

[Redleg]

a) Wouldn't this require that AQ be identified as a state or government?

The way I understand it was that during the invasion of Afganstan - any militia of afganstan citizens are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions - those captured in Afganstan that were not legal combatants in accordance with the Hague Conventions can be ruled as illegal combatants. This must be done through a tribunal - which was done. After that the government must provide them a criminal trail with at minimum another military tribunal - but no time limit has been established.

This is the valid point concerning GITMO in my opinion - the military tribunal has been conducted and they have been determined to be illegal combatants - a criminal trail must now be held either using military due process or civilian due process in accordance with the established code of the holding power. In this case those who state that holding prisoners in GITMO without trail is wrong is a valid point. One that if I remember correctly I even agreed with in a similiar discussion with Hurin.

When one states that due process is being denied to the individuals captured in Afganstan by the United States - then I agree with them. Individuals captured in Iraq can still be held since the occupation is still ongoing as long as military tribunals are determined at regular intervals to determine if their is enough evidence to warrant holding them as illegal combatants or as POW's.

b) So that the government could declare war against it?
c) Is there a formal declaration of war against AQ?

THe United States Congress has neglected its duty - and passed the War Powers Act of 1973. A judge with some balls needs to rule the Act unconsitutional.

The United States has a history of going to armed conflict without a formal declaration of War by Congress - remember Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, Somilia, Kosovo, Bosina, and if I remember correctly Korea.

Sure it makes good print to say War on Terrorism. But has Congress actually declared War on AQ?

See the above point - without a formal declartion of war does not negate the international law to abide by the Hague Conventions. However since you bring up an interesting point - a non-declared war does not require the military to follow any rules if it so choses. How is that for a unpleasant twist.

[Redleg]

PS - now if your just wanting to talk about what the CIA is doing, I think they are completely in the wrong holding individuals without following the Laws of War and being open about the holding of these individuals.

But that is just me.

[TinCow]

They are entitled to POW status if they are a soldier , civilian , combatant or non combatant , until there is a tribunal to determine their status .

How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public. This references back to my question about how those of us in the dark are supposed to make judgment calls on things we cannot know.

They are in detention so they have the rights of detainees , sentencing is irrelevant to those rights .
Its the law

Yes, but if they have been found to be illegal combatants, then holding them in isolation and interrogating them is not a violation of any law that I am aware of. You keep speaking as if they were POWs. I know this argument has been done many times on this forum but Al Qaeda members, especially senior level members, simply are not POWs and they do not receive the same rights. You may disagree with this and you may think that they should be considered POWs, but that will not change the fact that US and international law do not consider them to be so.

[Goofball]

How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public.

It's a scary state of affairs when we simply have to take the word of the government about something like that.

"Trials? Suuuuurrre.. We gave them trials. Fair ones too! They were all guilty. Every last one of them. Transcripts of the trials? Erm... We lost them. But don't worry. We're the good guys!"

Think about what you are suggesting, TC. Due process cannot be private and still be credible.