Are there any "prisoners of war" being held in other countries comparable to the ones...

[Tom_Tildrum]

@AK84

WHat makes Gitmo so unique is that … THere are further no means to challenge the situation…

This was the case with the Bush I/Clinton Gitmo detentions in the 90s but, as CoolHandCox notes, it is no longer true. I believe it is still essentially true at Bagram, which remains outside the reach of the federal courts (and, IIRC, uses a review procedure that was found inadequate at Gitmo).

[clairobscur]

@ThelmaLou

That’s why I used the word “comparable.”

I didn’t know how else to phrase it to ask my question. I wanted to get the SENSE of what I was asking across. Please excuse my lack of precision. Feeling unnecessarily nit-picked. :rolleyes:

It’s not a nitpick, because Guantanamo is a huge and loaded issue.

[clairobscur]

@CoolHandCox

They are being held as “prisoners of war” (technically unprivileged enemy combatants).

They aren’t prisonners of war. they don’t benefit from the rights and protections granted by the Geneva convention. There’s a reason why the US government invented for them the expression “ennemy combatants”. It’s not a technicality at all.

And the detainees at Gitmo can challenge their detention via a writ of habeas corpus - if a Judge decides they are no longer a threat or never was the Judge can order his release.

A prisoner of war can’t do such a thing. Another example of them not being prisonners of war. And “a judge deciding they are no longer a threat” isn’t due process, either. A special category has been invented just for them so that they won’t benefit from any protection.

Further, their status as combatants is reviewed periodically to determine if they are still a threat, if not, they are released. Many hundreds have been released in that manner. The problem is finding a country to take them and the fact we have no plans to release about 40ish. That’s fine as long as they are still a threat and there is a war ongoing. The last part is becoming extremely tenuous.

Which means again that they’re deprived of due process. Hence benefiting neither from the rights of a prisonner of war nor from the rights of a prosecuted criminal. And that they can be detained without limit of time at the whim of who knows whom for who knows what reason.

[ThelmaLou]

@clairobscur

It’s not a nitpick, because Guantanamo is a huge and loaded issue.

That’s why I said “comparable,” not “identical” or “just like” or “the same as.”

The answer seems to be “no, there are no mass detention facilities elsewhere in the world where foreign governments are holding a relatively large number of detainees comparable to the way the US government is holding detainees at the Guantanamo facility.”

[CoolHandCox]

Correct, they are not Geneva Prisoners of War. It’s not possible for them to be. That’s only possible when someone is fighting on behalf of a country versus another country. No other way. Here it’s a country fighting a terrorist organization.

That leaves Geneva “citizen” or an irregular combatant. Since we went down the war route post 9/11 they are not citizens commiting crimes. That leaves the latter. For example, if a ragtag Texas militia decided to attack Washington DC, if captured, they would not be Geneva POW’s because they are not a recognized country or coherent fighting force. That would be legally improper. They would be detained an afforded all the rights under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - a catch all provision providing basic protections.*

After a series of legal and political wrangling, the Gitmo detainees have all the protections afforded under Article 3, and more.** The problem of course was declaring this a war against terrorists, and now determining when the war is over.

*CA3 has been added numerous protections via international legal opinions and what it provides exactly is complicated. Our Supreme Court stated some minimum due process and they are now provided that.

** nothing prevents a country from giving detainees more rights - the law just sets the legal minimum.

[CoolHandCox]

@ThelmaLou

That’s why I said “comparable,” not “identical” or “just like” or “the same as.”

The answer seems to be “no, there are no mass detention facilities elsewhere in the world where foreign governments are holding a relatively large number of detainees comparable to the way the US government is holding detainees at the Guantanamo facility.”

I would say that’s absolutely incorrect. There are hundreds of thousands of detainees around the world. If by “mass” and “large” we’re talking 100-200 detainees, I would imagine many thousand such detention sites.

[CoolHandCox]

nm

[AK84]

@Tom_Tildrum

This was the case with the Bush I/Clinton Gitmo detentions in the 90s but, as CoolHandCox notes, it is no longer true. I believe it is still essentially true at Bagram, which remains outside the reach of the federal courts (and, IIRC, uses a review procedure that was found inadequate at Gitmo).

I don’t know the Bagram issue, but wrt to Gitmo, all releases have been due to internal decisions rather than any direct Court order.

[njtt]

@Diceman

North Korea is holding an American prisoner because he was preaching Christianity.

If what he was doing was actually against the law in North Korea, and he was tried for it, that is really not comparable. The issue with Guantanamo is not so much that people are being held for what the US considers crimes, but that they are being held by the USA under circumstances that are certainly inconsistent with the spirit, and very arguably the letter, of the laws and constitution of the USA itself.

[ThelmaLou]

@CoolHandCox

I would say that’s absolutely incorrect. There are hundreds of thousands of detainees around the world. If by “mass” and “large” we’re talking 100-200 detainees, I would imagine many thousand such detention sites.

Let me try again:

The answer seems to be “no, there are no mass detention facilities elsewhere in the world where foreign governments are holding a relatively large number **(GREATER THAN 100, FOR EXAMPLE) **of AMERICAN detainees TOGETHER IN THAT ONE FACILITY comparable to the way the US government is holding detainees at ONE LOCATION, NAMELY, the Guantanamo facility.”

[ThelmaLou]

@CoolHandCox

Correct, they are not Geneva Prisoners of War…[snip]

I know that. That’s why I put “prisoners of war” in quotes, because I know they are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

:smack:

[Diceman]

There’s a new one this morning. An American veteran of the Korean War was taken off of a plane out of North Korea just before it left. So far, they haven’t said why he was detained.

[Loach]

@ThelmaLou

Let me try again:

The answer seems to be “no, there are no mass detention facilities elsewhere in the world where foreign governments are holding a relatively large number **(GREATER THAN 100, FOR EXAMPLE) **of AMERICAN detainees TOGETHER IN THAT ONE FACILITY comparable to the way the US government is holding detainees at ONE LOCATION, NAMELY, the Guantanamo facility.”

Of course not. We are involved in no other armed conflicts where that would be the case. And in Afghanistan we are allied with the government. The non-governmental forces we are in conflict with are not in the habit of taking prisoners. And as a veteran I can assure you we knew to continue to fight and not get captured and show up on Liveleak getting beheaded.

[md2000]

@AK84

1. That is completely incorrect. Most government, even the most totalitarian ones have always found something to blame the detained/condemned with. At the same thime there are procedures (no matter how unreliable or perfunctory) to review and challenge the action. WHat makes Gitmo so unique is that there is no charge or accusation at all. Just what can be described as a “bad feeling”.:rolleyes: THere are further no means to challenge the situation, the US Judiciary has not exactly covered itself in glory on this issue…

Yes, authoritarians love their show trials.
However, there are plenty of situations of prisoners who have disappeared and the government does not even admit they are holding the persons.

2. Errrr… the Greenpeace example is pretty much within the definition of piracy under the UN convention of law of the sea,Art 101. When challenging an authoritarian government its usually not a good idea to do their work for them.

There’s a big difference between seizing a ship with firearms, and climbing aboard with a bunch of painted signs and no aggressive intent… by that definition every stowaway is a pirate. But yes, they are acting like idiots and I have limited sympathy for them. they are protesting oil exploration while arriving on a vessel with fuel tank capacity of thousands of gallons… of oil. They are tweaking a bully’s nose and expecting the rest of the world to jump in and save them. May they can take this as a learning experience.

Article 101
Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
61
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of
depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the
passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or
against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place
outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or
of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or
aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act
described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

Climbing aboard to hang signs might be considered depredation by a sympathetic judge…

[ThelmaLou]

@Loach

Of course not…

:smack:

[CoolHandCox]

@ThelmaLou

Let me try again:

The answer seems to be “no, there are no mass detention facilities elsewhere in the world where foreign governments are holding a relatively large number **(GREATER THAN 100, FOR EXAMPLE) **of AMERICAN detainees TOGETHER IN THAT ONE FACILITY comparable to the way the US government is holding detainees at ONE LOCATION, NAMELY, the Guantanamo facility.”

ah, I thought there were two separate questions in the OP. Anyone detained, and then Americans specifically.

[GreasyJack]

@ThelmaLou

Let me try again:

The answer seems to be “no, there are no mass detention facilities elsewhere in the world where foreign governments are holding a relatively large number **(GREATER THAN 100, FOR EXAMPLE) **of AMERICAN detainees TOGETHER IN THAT ONE FACILITY comparable to the way the US government is holding detainees at ONE LOCATION, NAMELY, the Guantanamo facility.”

Even with this latest move of the goalposts, Guantanamo isn’t really comparable because there’s many different nationalities being held there (including like I mentioned a couple of Americans). There are certainly Americans abroad who are currently being held and imprisoned without due process but, no, nobody has a special little prison for them.

[CoolHandCox]

There are/were numerous nationalities, but there are no Americans detained at Guantanamo. If there ever was, it’s because we did not know their nationality at the time. Once known, off to America. The law specifically states foreign nationals only (or similar language).

[GreasyJack]

@CoolHandCox

There are no Americans detained at Guantanamo. If there ever was, it’s because we did not know their nationality at the time. Once known, off to America. The law specifically states foreign nationals only (or similar language).

Ah, right you are. My mistake there.