BBC: British Broadcasting Corporation or Biased British Communists?
From the OP:
One cannot disagree with the above. The US and every country should continually take steps to improve its Human Rights record. No country is perfect.
But, the wording of the thread title represents the real severity of AI’s allegation: USA does not respect Human Rights.
That charge could not be proved by a handful of examples and rumors, even if they were correct.
december, you continue to wave your hands and not address the cases cited in the report. They represent a worsening of the respect for human rights by the government of the USA. And that is not a good thing.
Well, currently, the Red Cross, AKA the ICRC performs most of the Inspections under the Geneva Treaty. During WWII, these Inpectors were known as “Geneva Inspectors” or “Geneva boys” by the POWs & their captors, altho generally they were part of the Red Cross. You can find the ICRC site, along with a complete text of the various Geneva protocols & conventions, at:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/party_gc
I give a few quotes from various Treaties, etc there (there are well over a hundred): “Rule 6 of the Rules of Detention provides for regular and unannounced inspections by qualified and experienced inspectors appointed under this Convention…” “The Inspections shall take place on a periodic basis, the frequency with which visits shall occur will be determined by the ICRC” “It is within the mandate (under this Convention) of the ICRC to visit persons detained in relation to armed conflicts and internal strife”. I guess the Convention is wrong then, they have no "inspectors’ even though they refer to them over & over. Sure, I guess if you prefer, a better term for these Inspectors would be “Red Cross Inspectors” or “ICRC Inspectors” even though the Red Cross doesn’t do all of the work.
I found an article about these inspectors and their visit to Guantanamo. From “epx news” dated Jan22, 2002. “A team of Red Cross Inspectors (which don’t exist, since I made them up. :rolleyes: ) has told the US Government that it should improve conditions for al Qaeda suspects regardless of whether they are categorized as prisoners of war. The advice- mainly concerned with the size and exposed nature of detention cells- was given to the American authorities privately, and a permanent Red Cross presence is to be established at the Guantanamo Bay camp”.
http://www.e-politix.com/bos/e.../aa651de76949d149a1edb09947464bd8000002e4a41.ht This is very long, so I make no guarantees.
Note that the INSPECTORS from GENEVA made no comment about the “CLEAR” and “OBVIOUS” “violations of the Geneva Convention” that were mentioned by those 2 well known experts in International Law above. :dubious: :rolleyes: Also note that AFAIK, the advice has been followed by the USA.
But that’s all right dudes. Please keep making up your interpretations of International Law. And again, go ahead and mail them off to the dudes who actually enforce & interpret these laws. I am sure they will have a nice quiet snicker at the naivite of American untra-liberals.
Somehow the “hampsters” screwed up that web addy. After “/bos/e…” instead of “a…” there should be “aa651de76949d149a1edb09947464bd” then "800000… etc. Or maybe I just can’t get it right. Oh well, Google it yourself if so.
First - the ICRC is the ICRC. They are not Geneva Inspectors, they are a humanitarian organziation. There are no Geneva Inspectors. Neither the ICRC nor any fictional Geneva Inspectors have any authority to “enforce and interpret” international laws. They are not the human rights police. There is no way for the ICRC to punish, enforce, compel, or exercise any type of authority over countries that do not comply with the Geneva Convention, and that is NOT the point of ICRC visits to prisoners. The point of ICRC visits is to make sure that prisoners are treated fairly, and initiate any consultative processes that may be necessary to improve their treatment. The ICRC visits are not to call countries to the mat for violating international law. There is an important difference which is apparently being lost on you.
Second - the ICRC does not make public statements about the conditions of the prisoners at Gitmo, nor does it discuss how the US should improve conditions. See
here : “The ICRC does not comment publicly on the situation in Guantanamo Bay. As a general rule, the ICRC discusses all matters concerning its visits to places of detention exclusively with the authorities concerned.” That being the case, the only source for information on the conditions at Gitmo are the reports from the captors – which, you must agree, cannot be considered objective and impartial.
Third - It is crystal clear that the US has not been responsive to the one major criticism that the ICRC has made public: “There has been much public debate about whether the internees in Guantanamo Bay are prisoners of war or not. The ICRC thinks that the legal status of each internee needs to be clarified on an individual basis and has repeatedly urged the US to do this.” (from same as earlier link).
It’s a sad day when the United States brushes aside the advice of the Red Cross.
The ICRC has “Inspectors” (and they call them that, too). The ICRC is authorized, under the Geneva Accords (and it says so right in your link) to conduct such inspections. Thus, they are “Geneva Inspectors”- they aren’t UN Inspectors or FDA Inspectors. :rolleyes: If you prefer to call them “Red Cross Inspectors” fine, but that does not change what they do or their authority to do it. No, they have no authority to “enforce” but I said so all along- any “enforcement” is done by the Member nation or by the War Crimes Courts at the Hague. However, the ICRC does & can report to the Hague. But saying the ICRC Inspectors- doing their inspections under the colour & authority of the Geneva Conventions, and inspecting FOR violations of said Conventions- are not “Geneva Inspectors” is being disengenuous.
If the ICRC doesn’t make “public statements” about Guantanamo Bay, what are those “statements” on its public Web Site? They make “reports & statements” all the time- it is just that these statements don’t mention indivduals.
Sure, “the legal status of each internee needs to be clarified on an indivdual basis”- which also says that some “internees” are NOT POW’s. Some may be. But in any case, the USA is allowing the ICRC full access to the internees, and full rights of inspection. We aren’t hiding anything. Note that you lopped off the next sentance in your quote: “In any case, the US has the right to legally prosecute any Internee at Guantanamo Bay suspected of having commited war crimes or any other criminal offence punishable under US law prior to or during the hostilities”.
However, I was unaware that the ICRC, under it’s authority under the Geneva Conventions, had made such a statement regarding a “clarification” needed. Thus, the USA should either make the clarification, or refute why it thinks it does not need to. Hardly a “clear & obvious violation of the Geneva Convention” but true, an ambiguous situation that should be “clarified”.
The ICRC has “Inspectors” (and they call them that, too). The ICRC is authorized, under the Geneva Accords (and it says so right in your link) to conduct such inspections. Thus, they are “Geneva Inspectors”- they aren’t UN Inspectors or FDA Inspectors. :rolleyes: If you prefer to call them “Red Cross Inspectors” fine, but that does not change what they do or their authority to do it. No, they have no authority to “enforce” but I said so all along- any “enforcement” is done by the Member nation or by the War Crimes Courts at the Hague. However, the ICRC does & can report to the Hague. By saying the ICRC Inspectors- doing their inspections under the colour & authority of the Geneva Conventions, and inspecting FOR violations of said Conventions- are not “Geneva Inspectors” is being disengenuous.
If the ICRC doesn’t make “public statements” about Guantanamo Bay, what are those “statements” on its public Web Site? They make “reports & statements” all the time- it is just that these statements don’t mention indivduals.
Sure, “the legal status of each internee needs to be clarified on an indivdual basis”- which also says that some “internees” are NOT POW’s. Some may be. But in any case, the USA is allowing the ICRC full access to the internees, and full rights of inspection. We aren’t hiding anything. Note that you lopped off the next sentance in your quote: “In any case, the US has the right to legally prosecute any Internee at Guantanamo Bay suspected of having commited war crimes or any other criminal offence punishable under US law prior to or during the hostilities”.
However, I was unaware that the ICRC, under it’s authority under the Geneva Conventions, had made such a statement regarding a “clarification” needed. Thus, the USA should either make the clarification, or refute why it thinks it does not need to. Hardly a “clear & obvious violation of the Geneva Convention” but true, an ambiguous situation that should be “clarified”.
DrDeth, I am not going to waste my time with you because it is not worth it. You are obviously the kind of person who will never admit you were mistaken even in the face of the most obvious evidence. I think it is clear to anyone reading this thread that you just don’t have a clue. If and when we meet in the pit we can go over this issue again.
An expert opinion on whether the Guantanamo detainees are POWs:
(FYI, Douglas Cassel is a human rights law expert, head of the Center for International Human Rights of the Northwestern University School of Law. I have known him professionally for more than ten years; I used to interpret his expert testimony in Immigration Court for political asylum cases. Also, one of my co-workers used to work for him when he was at DePaul University in a similar capacity.)
Yes, this is an op-ed piece. But one would be hard-pressed to find a more qualified opinion.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/ihr/display_details.cfm?ID=340&document_type=commentary
“The United States: Courts, Liberty and Guantanamo”
America’s press and public waste little time pondering the plight of some 600 men now imprisoned for up to ten months and counting at our Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. True, none are charged with any crime. None have access to lawyers, judges or hearings. But who cares – they’re terrorists, aren’t they?
Or are they?
Many of their families protest their innocence. Most of the men – all foreigners – were captured in or near the armed conflict in Afghanistan last year. Under the Geneva Conventions, where there is doubt as to their status, they are supposed to be brought before a “competent tribunal” to resolve any questions.
Right. So the question is whether there is a “doubt as to their status”.
Who would need to be in doubt? The captors? It can’t be the tribunal’s doubt, because determining whether there is doubt is the step before going to the tribunal. If the US authorities have no doubt that these captives are not POWs under the Geneva Conventions, then what? Is that all it takes to not require going to a tribunal for a determination?
Sheesh. When your parents pushed you to get better grades in school, did you indignantly list off all the people failing the class and rest on your laurels ( my mother never bought that excuse)?
If you find out your house has termites, do you ignore it because the neighbours have rats?
Or demand that the exterminator phrase his opinion of your termite problem in relation to the neighbours rats?
The US is a great nation with a good human rights record (though certainly not the best). Ignoring any problems it has because some other country is worse can at best just maintain the current level of “greatness”, and possibly cause it to lose ground.
So what if the neighbour has rats? You have termites. You’re better off than if you had rats, but you’d be better off still if you didn’t have termites either.
But here is the point that you are all missing. If the “internees” are in fact- POWS- then what happens? Why, then, they get all their rights under the Geneva Conventions, such as regular inspections (which don’t exist, according to some, here) by the ICRC… which, in case you missed the last few posts back- they are already getting. Since the USA has not yet made a “determination” (and yes, the USA can make such a determination, OUR “tribunals” can do it) then the USA is quite nicely giving the “internees” the benefits of the doubt and they are getting all their rights they would have as POWs under the Geneva convention.
And yes, the Geneva convention does say that. But it doesn’t say who gets to “have doubt”, as december pointed out. ICRC? Maybe. The USA? Seems as likely. Douglass Cassel? I don’t think so. Some poster here on the SDMB? Not bloody likely. :rolleyes: :dubious:
Then, does it say HOW LONG after capture such a “competent tribunal” must meet to answer said “doubt”? Does it say “Within 90 days…”? Not that I have seen.
Thus, it seems like the USA is adhering to the letter of the Law, and more so. Before we have a “competent tribunal” address the “doubt” we are giving the internees the full rights as POWs under the Geneva Convention. If they are NOT POWs, then they do not have those rights- any more so than regular criminal prisoners here in the USA have, anyway. We can then hold a Military tribunal, find them guilty (or not), and shoot them (or extradite them, or imprison them or…), if we like.
Gee gosh Sailor. I quake in my boots. Sorry if I was right, and you were wrong. And please you three, don’t try & tell me you knew about “RED CROSS Inspectors (of the Geneva Convention)” all the time, and it was only my leaving off “Red Cross” that had you baffled. If so, you baffle very easily. I note the lack of a post such as “No, Dr Deth-you &^%$*, there are no “Geneva” Inspectors, you must be talking about “Red Cross” Inspectors (which inspect under authotity of, and in adherance to- the GENEVA Convention)”. Or, since I asked for someone legit who had some doubts as to he USA Policy, you would have linked to the ICRC before I did. Don’t try & cover up your ignorance with excuses now that I have posted cites which prove you wrong. No weasling.
december, so far it seems that of all relevant authorities who might be in a position to judge the issue, the only ones who have no doubt as to their status are the people holding them in detention. If that’s not a classic case of the fox guarding the chicken coop, then I don’t know what is.
When determining someone’s right to liberty, IMO some competent authority other than the detaining authority ought to be in charge. Detention with no oversight or uninvolved judicial determination of any sort, for an indefinite period of time, sounds to me like a fundamentally reprehensible idea.
FWIW, Doug Cassel published an article last year in the Chicago Tribune stating that in his legal opinion, there is a tenable argument that Al-Qaeda detainees could legitimately be held, but regular Taliban should be treated as Geneva Convention prisoners, with all the rights that that entails; his reasoning was basically that Taliban fighters were regular Afghan army for Geneva Convention purposes.
Here’s a link to the article (fee required to view full text, and I’m too cheap; I did read it in detail when it was first published, though):
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/index.html?ts=1054244016
My God DrDeth have you not stopped digging yourself into a hole, I have a feeling you are just trolling now. I pointed out earlier that the High Signatouries (i.e. the nations that have signed the appropiate Convention) are responsible for the enforcement of the Geneva Convention(s), the ICRC has a purely humanitarian mission and has no organs to enforce the convention.
Though one of the more recent undertakings on the ICRC is to publize braches of the convention, it rarely speaks out so as not to jeopardize it’s missions in the offending countries
Link to full text of the applicable Geneva Convention, so you can make up your own minds about what it really says (although I don’t honestly think it contemplated an Al-Qaeda type situation involving non-state actors):
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Relevant portions [bolding mine]; I’ve tried to exclude as much as possible, because the Convention is insanely specific. I encourage you all to read the full text, though:
Article 4
**A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
- Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
- Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: **
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [IMO whether the Taliban have obeyed this is debatable; Al-Qaeda have not]
**3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. **
[snip]
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Article 10
The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.
When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, **the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention. **
Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.
No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.
Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article.
Article 11
**In cases where they deem it advisable in the interest of protected persons, particularly in cases of disagreement between the Parties to the conflict as to the application or interpretation of the provisions of the present Convention, the Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices with a view to settling the disagreement. **
For this purpose, each of the Protecting Powers may, either at the invitation of one Party or on its own initiative, propose to the Parties to the conflict a meeting of their representatives, and in particular of the authorities responsible for prisoners of war, possibly on neutral territory suitably chosen. The Parties to the conflict shall be bound to give effect to the proposals made to them for this purpose. The Protecting Powers may, if necessary, propose for approval by the Parties to the conflict a person belonging to a neutral Power, or delegated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who shall be invited to take part in such a meeting.
[snip]
Article 14
[snip]
** Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires. **
[snip]
Article 25
Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.
[snip]
Article 34
Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.
Adequate premises shall be provided where religious services may be held.
[is this happening? Somehow I doubt it.]
Article 38
While respecting the individual preferences of every prisoner, the Detaining Power shall encourage the practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners, and shall take the measures necessary to ensure the exercise thereof by providing them with adequate premises and necessary equipment.
Prisoners shall have opportunities for taking physical exercise, including sports and games, and for being out of doors. Sufficient open spaces shall be provided for this purpose in all camps.
[is this happening? Yeah, right.]
Article 70
Immediately upon capture, or not more than one week after arrival at a camp, even if it is a transit camp, likewise in case of sickness or transfer to hospital or another camp, every prisoner of war shall be enabled to write direct to his family, on the one hand, and to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123, on the other hand, a card similar, if possible, to the model annexed to the present Convention, informing his relatives of his capture, address and state of health. The said cards shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible and may not be delayed in any manner.
Article 71
Prisoners of war shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards [snip]
Prisoners of war who have been without news for a long period, or who are unable to receive news from their next of kin or to give them news by the ordinary postal route, as well as those who are at a great distance from their homes, shall be permitted to send telegrams, the fees being charged against the prisoners of war’s accounts with the Detaining Power or paid in the currency at their disposal. They shall likewise benefit by this measure in cases of urgency.
[yeah, right, sure we’re allowing this.]
Article 72
Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive by post or by any other means individual parcels or collective shipments containing, in particular, foodstuffs, clothing, medical supplies and articles of a religious, educational or recreational character which may meet their needs, including books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities.
Such shipments shall in no way free the Detaining Power from the obligations imposed upon it by virtue of the present Convention.
The only limits which may be placed on these shipments shall be those proposed by the Protecting Power in the interest of the prisoners themselves, or by the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other organization giving assistance to the prisoners, in respect of their own shipments only, on account of exceptional strain on transport or communications.
Article 99
No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.
[snip]
**No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel. **
**Article 103
Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months. **
** Article 104
In any case in which the Detaining Power has decided to institute judicial proceedings against a prisoner of war, it shall notify the Protecting Power as soon as possible and at least three weeks before the opening of the trial. This period of three weeks shall run as from the day on which such notification reaches the Protecting Power at the address previously indicated by the latter to the Detaining Power. [snip]
- Specification of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, giving the legal provisions applicable;
4 . Designation of the court which will try the case, likewise the date and place fixed for the opening of the trial.
The same communication shall be made by the Detaining Power to the prisoners’ representative.
If no evidence is submitted, at the opening of a trial, that the notification referred to above was received by the Protecting Power, by the prisoner of war and by the prisoners’ representative concerned, at least three weeks before the opening of the trial, then the latter cannot take place and must be adjourned.
Article 105
The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, **to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses and, if he deems necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter. He shall be advised of these rights by the Detaining Power in due time before the trial.
Failing a choice by the prisoner of war, the Protecting Power shall find him an advocate or counsel, and shall have at least one week at its disposal for the purpose. **The Detaining Power shall deliver to the said Power, on request, a list of persons qualified to present the defence. Failing a choice of an advocate or counsel by the prisoner of war or the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power shall appoint a competent advocate or counsel to conduct the defence.
The advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war shall have at his disposal a period of two weeks at least before the opening of the trial, as well as the necessary facilities to prepare the defence of the accused. He may, in particular, freely visit the accused and interview him in private. He may also confer with any witnesses for the defence, including prisoners of war. He shall have the benefit of these facilities until the term of appeal or petition has expired.
Particulars of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, as well as the documents which are generally communicated to the accused by virtue of the laws in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power, shall be communicated to the accused prisoner of war in a language which he understands, and in good time before the opening of the trial. The same communication in the same circumstances shall be made to the advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war.
The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the trial of the case, unless, exceptionally, this is held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the Detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
**Article 106
Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him, with a view to the quashing or revising of the sentence or the reopening of the trial. He shall be fully informed of his right to appeal or petition and of the time limit within which he may do so. **
Article 107
Any judgment and sentence pronounced upon a prisoner of war shall be immediately reported to the Protecting Power in the form of a summary communication, which shall also indicate whether he has the right of appeal with a view to the quashing of the sentence or the reopening of the trial. This communication shall likewise be sent to the prisoners’ representative concerned. It shall also be sent to the accused prisoner of war in a language he understands, if the sentence was not pronounced in his presence. The Detaining Power shall also immediately communicate to the Protecting Power the decision of the prisoner of war to use or to waive his right of appeal.
Furthermore, if a prisoner of war is finally convicted or if a sentence pronounced on a prisoner of war in the first instance is a death sentence, the Detaining Power shall as soon as possible address to the Protecting Power a detailed communication containing: - The precise wording of the finding and sentence;
- A summarized report of any preliminary investigation and of the trial, emphasizing in particular the elements of the prosecution and the defence;
- Notification, where applicable, of the establishment where the sentence will be served.
The communications provided for in the foregoing subparagraphs shall be sent to the Protecting Power at the address previously made known to the Detaining Power. **
Article 132
At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.
If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.
Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.
Look you can twist it as much as you want and yet the fact remains that the USA is holding people and denying them all rights to due process. It has invented something which goes against the very basis of western culture and that is that no one can be held and punished escept by process of law. That goes back centuries and the USA is wiping its ass with that. Governments which hold people without due process are correctly called terrorists and it is a shameful thing to do, Everybody is entitled to due process and it is barbaric to deny a human being such a basic right. And very cynical of the USA to criticize other countries for doing exactly that. It is totally unacceptable in a civilized society that the government can imprison a person secretly for as long as they want. It is disgusting.
If a person is a POW then he should be subject to the protection of the Geneva convention. If he is not a POW then he should be afforded all the protection of due process. And anything else is barbaric and a step towards justifying terrorism. Taking a man from his family and locking him up in secret and with no protections or justification is a very good definition of terrorism in my book.
Well said, Eva and sailor.
I have no problem with the United States capturing people who have shot at our soldiers or who our military, intelligence, and police agencies think are up to no good.
But once we have them, there’s only a few reasonable and just things that can happen.
1.) If they are POWs, they should be held until the hostilities are over, then released.
2.) If they are criminals of some sort, they should be tried for their crimes in accordance with our law and the Constitution, and punished if found guilty.
3.) If they are neither POWs nor criminals, they should be sent back home.
The Bush Administration has denied that those people in Gitmo are POWs. That’s disputable, but fine. So are they criminals? Well, we’ve held a good number of them for 18 months, we’ve denied them access to a lawyer, and apparently we haven’t charged them with anything. It doesn’t sound like the Administration is treating them like they are accused of any particular crime.
It sounds like these people are being held because the government thinks that they represent some kind of danger, even though they have not been charged with breaking any particular law. If this happens in a place like Russia or China, we have a very good term for these types of people: political prisoners.
It’s far past time to sh*t or get off the pot. Affirm that they are POWs, charge them with something, or send them back home. Pick any one of those outcomes, but it is immoral, unjust, and against the very core of a free society to keep people in prison without trial. The United States, which has the capacity to be the leading voice of freedom and liberty in the world, should not be allowed to create a 21st century Star Chamber outside its geographical borders.
Really? IANAL, but it seems clear that if they are neither criminals nor POWs, then they are not entitled to criminal due process nor POW due process. But, does that necessarily mean that they must be sent home? If so under whose requirement? US Constitution? US law? Geneva Agreements? UN resolutions? Some other basis? Do you have a cite?
The stupidity and ignorance of your argument is beyond comprehension. Your description (neither criminals nor POWs) is the exact description of every American citizen and non American alike. It would mean the Constitution is meaningless because the government can grab anybody and say “aha! you are neither a criminal nor a POW so I will lock you up at my pleasure”. The point is that nobody is a criminal not a POW until the courts determine that and the courts have NOT determined that which is what I am complaining about. You seem to say it is up to the government to determine who is a criminal or a POW or not. So why do we need courts then?