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

"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 ...

[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.

[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.

[scooter_the_shooter]

The people there are terrorist and you guys sympathize with them? 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.

[Ronin]

The people there are terrorist and you guys sympathize with them? 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? 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. 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? 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'

"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.

[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.

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/am...des/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.

[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.