# Back to Gitmo: When The Heck Will The Prisoners' Fates Be Decided? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124 "2003-09-12T03:11:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/181 "2003-09-17T13:18:50Z")
I would think ‘Civilian Internee’ would be more for people like the Iraqi Scientists or party members government officials. A member of a guerilla/terrorist group would simply be a combattant. What would an RRP be? Is that a POW to be retained after hostilities have ended? If so _that_ would be the tailor made category for the Gitmo detainees, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/182 "2003-09-17T13:36:25Z")
**Latro** , from the Glossary of terms at the end of [url=http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf]US Army Regulations 190-8: > [@](#): > > Civilian Internee - A civilian who is interned during armed conflict or occupation for security reasons or for protection or because he has commited an offence against the detaining power. Retained personnel are medics, administrators, chaplains and the like whom it would be “useful” to keep with the other detainees even though they are not actually combatants. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/183 "2003-09-17T13:37:37Z")
Sorry, [link](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf) (Big PDF!) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/184 "2003-09-17T13:38:17Z")
I base my conclusions on the fact that we have a lot of evidence which points in the direction that the prisoners _are_ being mistreated and the only thing we have against that are the self-serving declarations of some US government officials and, frankly, this government has lied so much that its word carries no weight with me. The Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian and human rights organizations have all criticized the US government on this issue as well as several countries > [@](#): > > [February 8, 2002 - Red Cross: Detainees ‘are POWs’](http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/08/ret.cuba.redcross/index.html) GENEVA, Switzerland – The International Committee of the Red Cross said it considered al Qaeda fighters held by U.S. forces to be prisoners of war, despite a U.S. declaration to the contrary. > > The Geneva-based organisation said it considered both Taliban and al Qaeda detainees held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as inside Afghanistan, to be in the same category. “They were captured in combat and we consider them prisoners of war,” ICRC spokesman Darcy Christen told Reuters. Several countries have protested and even Colin Powell has expressed concern: > [@](#): > > [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/06/unlawful.combatants/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/06/unlawful.combatants/index.html) > They also say basic human rights violations are taking place, with the detainees being kept in prolonged solitary confinement, heavy shackling and lack of adequate exercise. Fifteen detainees have unsuccessfully attempted to commit suicide. > > Human rights groups say the detainees will only be released or tried when politicians put enough pressure on the U.S. government to take action. > > The latest release comes after the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the time it was taking to come to a decision on the fate of the detainees. > > Eight countries have complained about its citizens being detained, among them Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Britain and Pakistan. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to recall every single news item which contributed to support my views but I recall news items where US officials admitted openly using sleep deprivation, threats of sending them to other countries where they would be tortured and other techniques qhich can only be labeled as “coercion”. Using good cop - bad cop techniques. Promising earlier release and other perks etc. Disorienting them by sleep deprivation. Using women as interrogators in such a way that they would feel humiliated and broken. What makes it worse is that when openly questioned, US officials have never really flatly denied that any coercion is being used but they hee and they haw all over the place saying things like, when asked about sleep deprivation: “environmental manipulation enhancement interrogation techniques are not contrary to the protocols of the understanding that we have of the rights of illegal combatants”. To me that translates as “we’re torturing them and I just wish I could tell you openly”. And this from a government who has lied so much that the value of its word is zero. The USA government has assisted in the human rights abuses in many cases so it is not out of the question that they continue to do it. US forces stood by in Afghanistan as metal shipping containers were filled with prisoners and let to suffocate in the sun. Prisoners have been threatened with being sent to countries where they knew they would be tortured and many of those made prisoner in Afghanistan have, indeed, been sent to Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan with full knowledge of what awaited them. To me that makes the US government guilty of causing the torture of human beings and using that as a threat to others is also an unacceptable coercion in that it is terrorising them with threats. To me all the indications are that prisoners are being abused in a very evil way. The number of attempted suicides supports this. Now, you can close your eyes and say we do not know what is happening there and there is no definitive evidence but to me the indications are clear and thos who choose to close their eyes are as guilty as those who chose not to know what was happeneing in the Nazi concentration camps. The signs were there but they chose not to know because it was easier. To me all the signs point in the same direction and I chose not to ignore them. If the US government has nothing to hide then they should be open about it. In the meanwhile I think they are guilty as charged because the circumstantial evidence is just overwhelming. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/185 "2003-09-17T13:40:05Z")
Ah, 'k. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/186 "2003-09-17T14:00:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > Putting aside whether or not this is blatant sophistry, It’s not “sophistry” at all. [“Subject to”](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subject%20to) is the plain language of the regulation on which you rely, and it means “possibly accepting or permitting” or “capable of being or liable to be subjected to judgment or test.” Nothing mandatory about it–they may be tried by a military tribunal, or they may not be tried by a military tribunal. That’s quite distinct from POW’s, who may only be put on trial under very limited circumstances. > [@](#): > > I assure you that this is the _only_ place where non-GC status is provided for, and it is _crystal clear_ that **everyone** starts off with PoW status. Sure, until “competent authoirty” determines they have other status. So what? > [@](#): > > Now, at the _very minute_ a man is captured, no determination of his personal case could _possibly_ have been made by the President since he does not even _know_ that the man has been captured. I don’t know whether it’s happened this way, but it’s certainly possible for “competent authority” to determine ahead of time that, for instance, all persons taken into custody in connection with anti-al Qaeda operations are designated as unlawful combatants. > [@](#): > > Also, some detainees have been released, presumably because they were determined to be Innocent Civilians. Was _this_ determination made by the President, or by three officers, one with a field grade? I assume it was made by “competent authority.” Again, so what? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/187 "2003-09-17T14:22:50Z")
> [@](#): > > it’s certainly possible for “competent authority” to determine ahead of time that, for instance, all persons taken into custody in connection with anti-al Qaeda operations are designated as unlawful combatants. And so US Army Regulations, which specify that everyone is a _PoW_ until determination by the competent authority, are redundant? Surely they should be rewritten to say that captured combatants should enjoy **no GC protection** until such is _bestowed_ by an authority such as presidential decree? You are free to persist in calling the whim of the President the “competent authority”, when subsequent sections make it plain that this refers to a three-officer tribunal. I would be interested to see how such an interpretation goes down with any moderately comptetent lawyer (international, military or otherwise). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/188 "2003-09-17T15:28:48Z")
Sincw when is GWB either competent or a legitimate authority? ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/189 "2003-09-17T15:46:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **Brutus, it is _clear_ from the context that I meant “coerced interrogations” but, in case it was not clear from the context it is clear from my later posts.** And the correct way to avoid all this is to say “I meant, but didn’t explicitly say, ‘coerced interrogations’, not simply ‘interrogations’. You’re correct, interrogations are not allowed by the Geneva conventions. My point was about torture. Sorry for the confusion.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **You can clearly see that my post which he cites does not even contain the word “interrogation” and does contain the word “coercion”. His response makes no sense as there is no way to interpret my post the way he interprets it. NO WAY. Anyone who says the opposite is either (a) a drooling idiot or (b) playing silly games in an effort to obscure the substance of what is being discussed.** When I read your response, I understood your point, but I also thought that you were trying to blow past a distortion that you posted by ignoring it, and Rickjay was holding your feet to the fire for a correction. Why are you standing on this? You started this by misrepresenting your position. Correct it and move on. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/190 "2003-09-17T16:32:25Z")
I’ll go back to my original post. The fate of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners has already been determined. They are in limbo and will stay that way until the Secretary of Defense decides to let them go, probably in a trickle as has been the case so far. And SecDef is too busy right now taking care of “national security” to concern himself with such trifles. He’ll get back to you on that. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/191 "2003-09-17T17:29:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > \*\*And the correct way to avoid all this is to say “I meant, but didn’t explicitly say, ‘coerced interrogations’, not simply ‘interrogations’. You’re correct, interrogations are not allowed by the Geneva conventions. My point was about torture. Sorry for the confusion.” Hansel, for me the word “interrogation” already carries enough negative connotation that it does not need explanation. I have never heard anybody say “I am going to interrogate my wife to see if she wants to go to a movie”. I have always heard it used negatively. In any case, the point was _already_ clarified by me as is made very clear in the post which was cited. > [@](#): > > When I read your response, I understood your point, but I also thought that you were trying to blow past a distortion that you posted by ignoring it, and Rickjay was holding your feet to the fire for a correction. Holding my feet to the fire for a correction which I had _already_ provided and was cited by him in the post. It was merely an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. > [@](#): > > Why are you standing on this? You started this by misrepresenting your position. Correct it and move on. It ain’t me who is standing on this. You understood my point, but it seems someone decided to play with the definition of “interrogate” and try to sidetrack the thread. I had already made clear what I meant and I am merely replying to accusations that I am maintaining what is clear that I am NOT maintaining. My posts are replies to accusations, I am not the one initiating this. Note that in my reply to Brutus I did not mention Rickjay because as he had not responded to me I considered the matter was settled with him unle _he_ chose to continue. And I said the same to Brutus: if he drops it, the matter is settled as far as I am concerned. I have no interest in these silly sidetracks which are merely ad hominem attacks. Intelligent posters understand what I mean and can address the substance of my posts but it is silly to waste time arguing about the fact that what I said could be interpreted in other ways. You can see I am continuing to post on the substance of the thread and I have no interest in getting hung up on this. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/192 "2003-09-17T19:09:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **Brutus, it is _clear_ from the context that I meant “coerced interrogations” but, in case it was not clear from the context it is clear from my later posts. Now, I will go slowly here. This is my post: And this is Rickjay’s answer to that post which he quotes: You can clearly see that my post which he cites does not even contain the word "interrogation"** What the hell are you talking about? Here is what you wrote that I quoted: > [@](#): > > The US government has clearly and inequivocally indicated it considers these detainees as wrongdoers. The only way to determine if the US government is right is to try them. > > And, BTW, **the USA is interrogating them continually** which is a practice expressly forbidden for POWs who are only required to give their name and rank. Wonderful. Ain’t the Americans nice?!your post in full: You said “Interrogating,” which is a tense of the word “interrogate.” Go back and read my post if you don’t believe me. It’s right there. > [@](#): > > Anyone who says the opposite is either (a) a drooling idiot or (b) playing silly games in an effort to obscure the substance of what is being discussed. I think the readers of this thread can make up their mind in that respect and I am quite confident they would find I am not the one being disingenuous. sailor, it’s really very simple; you said, quite clearly, on more than one occasion, that the Geneva Convention SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS INTERROGATION. **That is a very common misconception; I have encountered people before who believed that.** The statement is indisputably false, the Geneva Conventions do nothing of the sort. Interrogating prisoners is quite allowed, providing they are not tortured or have rights or provileges taken from them for not answering. I clarified that point and you seem to have taken it personally. Tough. You were wrong and I’ve corrected the matter; hopefully everyone else now understands that interrogations are not prohibited by international law. Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/193 "2003-09-17T19:53:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > And so US Army Regulations, which specify that everyone is a _PoW_ until determination by the competent authority, are redundant? Surely they should be rewritten to say that captured combatants should enjoy **no GC protection** until such is _bestowed_ by an authority such as presidential decree? I have said no such thing. I merely pointed out that it was possible for “competent authority” to determine in advance whether a particular class of persons is entitled to POW status. I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that al Qaeda suspects captured in military operations cannot claim POW status, and it makes perfect sense for “competent authority” to make that preliminary determination in advance. > [@](#): > > You are free to persist in calling the whim of the President the “competent authority”, when subsequent sections make it plain that this refers to a three-officer tribunal. Nonsense. Section 1-6 (“Tribunals”), to which you apparently refer, makes it plain that those tribunals are _not_ the “competent authority” referred to in section 1-5(a)(2). Section 1-6 provides for a tribunal to determine the status of a non-POW prisoner only when the prisoner “asserts that he or she is entitled to treatment as a prisoner of war, or concerning whom any doubt of a like nature exists.” Under your theory, there would never be any need to convene a tribunal to determine a non-POW’s status when doubt arises or he claims POW status, because _all_ prisoners not treated as POWs would _already_ have been determined not to be such by your tribunal. That’s directly contrary to section 1-6, which provides for a tribunal only _after_ they’ve been denied POW status. The cart of section 1-6 goes _after_ the horse of section 1-6, not the other way around. > [@](#): > > I would be interested to see how such an interpretation goes down with any moderately comptetent lawyer (international, military or otherwise). Hi, lawyer speaking. Where do I send you my bill? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/194 "2003-09-17T20:27:40Z")
Sigh. You know, I can respect someone who disagrees with me but I cannot respect a liar. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by RickJay > What the hell are you talking about? > > Here is what you wrote that I quoted: > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by sailor > > The US government has clearly and inequivocally indicated it considers these detainees as wrongdoers. The only way to determine if the US government is right is to try them. > > > > And, BTW, the USA is interrogating them continually which is a practice expressly forbidden for POWs who are only required to give their name and rank. Wonderful. Ain’t the Americans nice?! Look, stop lying already. That is NOT what you quoted as anyone can see by just scrolling up. That is what I posted initially and which had been qualified and explained in later posts. For the fourth or fifth time, **this** is what you quoted: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by sailor > The Geneva Convention prohibits using any kind of **coercion** to obtain information from prisoners. The US government _is_ using coercion to obtain information from prisoners. And this is your answer to that post which you quoted: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by RickJay > sailor, I don’t know if you’re being deliberately dense or something, but I’m going to put this as carefully as I can: > > You said that the Geneva convention forbids the **interrogation** of prisoners. That is not true. The Geneva Convention does not forbid the interrogation of prisoners. It forbids the use of torture and mistreatment in the course of interrogation, but not interrogation. You were wrong. I have to say if there is someone being dense here it ain’t me. For me the word “interrogation” implies a certain degree of coercion and, in case that was not clear initially I have stressed that in every subsequent post. But instead of focusing on discussing the substance of whether the American government is, indeed, infringing on people’s human rights, you prefer to harp on the meaning of the word “interrogate” which I have made clear already many times what I mean and it is silly to imply that I mean something else. I think intelligent people who are following this thread have understood what I meant all along. They may agree or disagree with the substance of my posts but I do not think anyone is confused by the meaning of my words. Rickjay, this is a wasteful highjack. Let us stay on topic here and, if you want to continue this open a pit thread. You can open it if you like but let’s put it aside in _this_ thread. I’ll be happy to meet you in the pit if that’s what you want. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/195 "2003-09-17T22:21:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > \*\*And you’re shifting the burden of proof again. Their **default status is PoW** _until a competent tribunal decides otherwise_. > > The US army regulations are _perfectly clear_ that this is the default, and that the burden of proof is on those making accusations of criminality: [US Army regulation 190-8](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf). Rummy doesn’t count. \*\* So close but yet so far. The prisoners at Guantanamo must be accorded the _protections_ of the Geneva Conventions (and note that “s”- there are around a hundred “Protocols” and “Convetions” so you armchair lawyers that find one section of one treaty and think you know what you are talking about- don’t)- but NOT the “status” of (until a determination is made of their “real status”). The Gitmo detainees are indeed being provided with all such protectios, the ICRC has a full time staff of Inspectors right there to keep an eye on us. Are they POW’s? Well, let us see what the ICRC (The ICRC has the rights under the Geneva Conventions to inspect for Violations of said Conventions) says: “Prisoners of war- Yes or No? There has been much public debate over whether or not 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. In any case, the US has the right to legally prosecute any internee at GB suspected of having commited war crimes or any other criminal offence punishable under US law prior to or during the hostilities”. So- no- they are not “clearly” POW’s. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. The USA should (IMHO) follow the request of the ICRC and hold a Tribunal on each to determine their POW status. The GC says we have to- but does not give a time limit. We are allowed to hold them (while giving them the "protections of POW’s) for a while until we have had said Tribunal. However, I agree we are lagging here. Can the USA try them under Int’l and/or US law? Well, the ICRC seems to think so. So what does the USA have to do? 1. Treat them _AS_ POW’s until their “status” is determined by a Tribunal. _We have_ - with some minor violations, that we have corrected. 1. Hold a tribunal to determine their POW status. _We are lagging here, but are inside the letter of the Law._ Our Tribunal can determine they are NOT POW’s. 2. “Legally Prosecute for War Crimes or under US Law”- _That we are working on._ Could we be doing better? Yes. Are we violating the Geneva Conventions? No. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/196 "2003-09-17T23:01:07Z")
> [@](#): > > The Gitmo detainees are indeed being provided with all such protectios, . . . Nonsense. For instance, the detainees are being held in individual cells, not housed in facilities comparable to the soldiers at Guantanamo, in violation of required by Article 22 and 25 of the Geneva Convention (note the lack of an _s_–there are many Geneva Conventions, but only one on prisoners of war). Detainees have reportedly been transferred to any number of countries with relaxed attitudes towards torture and human rights, in direct contradiction of Article 12. I seriously doubt there’s a camp store, as required by Article 28. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/197 "2003-09-17T23:19:00Z")
So YOU say. :dubious: Care to back that up with some cites from the ICRC? Or have YOU also been authorized under the Convention to inspect for violations? :rolleyes: And there are far more than one. Go to the ICRC home page yourself, dude. Some of these treaties date back to 1856. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/198 "2003-09-17T23:22:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Sigh. You know, I can respect someone who disagrees with me but I cannot respect a liar. Look, stop lying already. That is NOT what you quoted as anyone can see by just scrolling up. \*\* Umm… yes, it is. I actually cut and pasted it. Maybe you’ve lost track of where this started, but **my** first post - and the quote - comes right after **minty green’s** post where he says “Dammit. “I’ve” in the first response should have been a pithy rejoinder to the silly name-calling that you’ve apparently been reduced to.” (referring to another post.) > [@](#): > > That is what I posted **intially** and which had been qualified and explained in later posts. For the fourth or fifth time, **this** is what you quoted: Good Christ, are you serious? That is not what you posted “initially.” You made a very long post indeed before that one, in which you… well, here it is. Here is your entire initial post, on Page 3 of this thread; **THE FIRST ONE I RESPONDED TO.** Remember, this is YOUR post. This is what I responded to. Your words. Clear? Here we go: > [@](#): > > The US government has clearly and inequivocally indicated it considers these detainees as wrongdoers. The only way to determine if the US government is right is to try them. > > \*\*And, BTW, the USA is interrogating them continually which is a practice expressly forbidden for POWs who are only required to give their name and rank. \*\* > > ## quote: > > [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6601339.htm](http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6601339.htm) > > ## Inducements such as chewing gum, instant tea and salt packets are given to those who cooperate during their interrogations > > Wonderful. Ain’t the Americans nice?! > > The USA accuses them of breaking laws. Let the courts determine that. It is a principle embodied in the US constitution and the USA government should respect it. This is a shame and very beneath what America should be standing for. When China did things like this the USA criticized it and rightly so. Now the USA is being criticized by the rest of the world, and rightly so. This has no place in civilized society. Bolding emphasis mine. Are you denying you posted this? The username next to this post says “sailor.” Isn’t that you? Because this is what I was referring to in my first post to you… as you can see I quoted you quite accurately. Now, I want you to notice something, sailor. In this post, which you posted, and which I replied to, you use the word “interrogating.” Do you see it, up there, in the second paragraph? Yes, there it is. If you will also read your post very carefully, you will notice that you do not use the word “coercion” or any form thereof. Unless you’re saying this was someone else with the username “Sailor” Remember, it’s on Page 3 of the thread, about 6-7 posts from the bottom. Go back and see for yourself. Incidentally, you are free to take back the “liar” accusation now. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/199 "2003-09-18T01:43:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > Care to back that up with some cites from the ICRC? [“Wherever the ICRC visits places of detention, its findings and observations about the conditions and treatment for detainees are discussed confidentially with the authorities in charge. Guantanamo Bay is no exception.”](http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument) That also means YOU also can’t cite the Red Cross to prove your assertion that everything is hunky dorey in Gitmo. Nevertheless, how about a few [pictures](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1771816.stm) of the Guantanamo detention facility? Note in particular this caption: “The men are kept in [cells](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2002/inside_camp_xray/cell.stm) measuring 1.8m by 2.4m, which are open to the elements.” Not exactly standard-issue Marine barracks, eh? Now, you may object, and rightfully so, that those were only the _initial_ conditions for the detention center. And indeed, those open-air cages appear to have been replaced by more permanent structures. But guess what? [They’re still “cells,” where the prisoners are contained except for two 15-minute periods each week](http://www.iht.com/articles/99822.html). (That particular fact appears on the last page of the reprinted NYT story.) And hey, here’s [a detailed description of the curent facility](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm), which notes: > [@](#): > > Camp Delta was initially a 612-unit detention facility. It is built on the site of a former facility made up of cinder-block buildings used years before during a Haitian refugee operation. Each detention units is 8 feet long, 6 feet 8 inches wide and 8 feet tall and constructed with metal mesh material on a solid steel frame. Approximately 24 units make up a detention block. Even better, there’s a wonderful comparison of the prisoners’ facilities versus the facilities of the local US forces. As you undoubtedly recall, the Convention requires POWs to be housed in comparable facilities. Not in Gitmo: > [@](#): > > Unlie Freedom Heights, both Camp America and Camp Bulkeley (another camp in which other troops assigned to Camp Delta also reside), the facilities feature hot showers, laundry, and workout facilities. > > Each weather-resistant seahut is equipped with two doors at either end and allows for amenities not available at Freedom Heights, such as a fully operating, local area networked communications seahut with phones and fast Internet access available 24 hours a day. The camp also possesses a basketball court, a library, and a hut offering a big-screen television, movies with seating for 20. Each morale welfare and recreation seahut is grouped with two other MWR seahuts with a common porch around them. There are three groups of three MWR seahuts throughout the camp including a chaplain’s area and a medical aid station to treat residents. So, now that I’ve pretty conclusively established that the prisoners are not being held in the conditions prescribed by the Geneva Convention, are you going to have the good grace to concede the point? Or can I look forward to more ill-founded smilies? > [@](#): > > And there are far more than one. Go to the ICRC home page yourself, dude. Some of these treaties date back to 1856. Read what I freakin’ wrote, dude. There have been several “Geneva Conventions,” but there is only one “Geneva Convention” relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. An initial version of that treaty was adopted in 1929, but it was revised and replaced by the current treaty in [1949](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/77cb9983be01d004c12563cd002d6b3e?OpenDocument). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/200 "2003-09-18T03:26:18Z")
minty, in fairness, I don’t think the purpose of that part of the Geneva Convention is to ensure prisoners of war have access to cable modems, LifeFitness machines and big screen televisions. The purpose was, I am quite certain, to ensure men are kept in conditions conducive to their safety, health and dignity. You cannot reasonably argue that access to a big TV is what the writers of the GC were aiming for. However, I admit your cite had some rather disturbing news in it, including: > [@](#): > > It was revealed in late April/early May 2003, that US Secretary of State Colin Powell had written a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld complaining of the indefinite detention and lack of progress on the determination of the status of detainees there. It was also revealed that the detainees included also “one 13-year-old, one 14-year-old, two 15-year-olds, one 16-year-old, an 88-year-old, and a 98-year-old”. Oooh, the scary 98-year-old! Watch out, he’ll hit you with his colostomy bag! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124.md?page=11)