CIA runs network of secret prisons

[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.