CIA runs network of secret prisons

[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]

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?

[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.

[solypsist]

personal attacks will be responded to (by me). it's only the internet, please step away if you feel in danger of overreaching.

if this continues in this direction the Sir Clegane or I will lock this thread. it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel for everyone.

/metaphor mode off

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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.

Crawl back under your bridge little troll.

[Idaho]

Crawl back under your bridge little troll.

I love your contributions to debates Panzer. If I ever want to know the lowest common denominator, the base level of ignorance that the world is up against, I can come on here and read your opinions.

The idea that you are in favour of a bunch of illegal practices, the details of which are not known - simply because you believe (and belief is all you have) they might possibly be working for your security is blinkered, lazy ignorance.

It is this kind of intellectually-untroubled non-think that governments rely on. Hey Panzer - look bad man hurt you! We hurt people who might be bad men! Good Panzer - have a candy!

[Tribesman]

if this continues in this direction the Sir Clegane or I will lock this thread.
It would appear that some people would like this topic locked , perhaps the numerous posts that show thier stance to be baseless and contrary to what they claim is too much to handle

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.

That seems like a complete summation of the subject , based on facts at hand , legal precedent , moral obligation and the general public benefit and security issues .
Does anyone have anything at all that can contradict Redlegs post ?

[Slyspy]

Not from me, I quite agree. Although as noted if the prisoners are not POWs (ie captured in a war zone) then civil justice should apply rather than military.

[Idaho]

Not from me, I quite agree. Although as noted if the prisoners are not POWs (ie captured in a war zone) then civil justice should apply rather than military.

You're just wimps. Obviously the only way forward is to tolerate and encourage national security services to start acting as international extra-judicial secret police. Everyone knows the CIA are famous for their history of mistake-free integrity - why would we want to hamper this organisation by scrutinising their activities?

[/sarcasm]

[PanzerJaeger]

I love your contributions to debates Panzer. If I ever want to know the lowest common denominator, the base level of ignorance that the world is up against, I can come on here and read your opinions.

The idea that you are in favour of a bunch of illegal practices, the details of which are not known - simply because you believe (and belief is all you have) they might possibly be working for your security is blinkered, lazy ignorance.

It is this kind of intellectually-untroubled non-think that governments rely on. Hey Panzer - look bad man hurt you! We hurt people who might be bad men! Good Panzer - have a candy!

Youre so cute, all sheltered and idealistic! I just want to wrap you in bubble-wrap and keep safe from reality!

Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.

Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla ( ), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry.

You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".

Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella.