# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/101 "2003-09-15T12:33:43Z")
I think it’s rather sad. ---
**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 15, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/102 "2003-09-15T15:14:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > No, the US administration’s focus on [Article 4.2.b](http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm) in this respect is absurd, since _any_ resistance movement (or indeed US Special Forces) might operate without proper combat fatigues or the like and yet would _very definitely_ be awarded PoW status upon capture. Nonsense. Think back to WWII, when soldiers from both sides were routinely executed when they were captured in civilian clothing. We went over and over the Geneva Convention issues 'round about the time of Our Winter of Missed Content. I was and am firmly convinced that the detainees in Guantanamo are not covered by the Convention, though it is somewhat of a close call with respect to the captured Taliban fighters. Nevertheless, I have grown more and more disturbed over the Bush admin’s refusal to take _any_ steps towards resolving the status of the Guantanamo prisoners. I’m also quite sure we’re not going to see any additional movement until the end of Bush’s term in office. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/103 "2003-09-15T15:32:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Nonsense. Think back to WWII, when soldiers from both sides were routinely executed when they were captured in civilian clothing. This part of the GC entered into force in 1950. One may as well “think back” to the Crusades. Articles 4 & 5 plainly relate to a militia without a specific uniform, and indeed the entire _point_ of those articles is to bestow PoW status on _anyone_ until the competent tribunal decides otherwise. Read article 5 again. **Pow status is the default**. If there is evidence of deliberately concealing arms or acting in violation of the laws and customs of war, they can be **tried as war criminals**. However they are absolutely, definitely, undeniably **Prisoners of War until that trial**. ---
**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 15, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/104 "2003-09-15T15:41:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Nonsense. Think back to WWII, when soldiers from both sides were routinely executed when they were captured in civilian clothing. > … > Nevertheless, I have grown more and more disturbed over the Bush admin’s refusal to take _any_ steps towards resolving the status of the Guantanamo prisoners. I’m also quite sure we’re not going to see any additional movement until the end of Bush’s term in office. \*\* I’d like to see a cite about the “routine” execution of “soldiers from both sides” in civilian clothing. There were those Germans who were landed on the East coast. That was a more or less open and shut case of people being inserted for the purpose of sabotage. Were there others on which you have data? However, I’m glad to see that your are more and more disturbed by the administration’s stance. I just wish someone in authority would get a little disturbed too. If you just bury people in an out-of-the-way gulag type of confinement and shut up, the world “moves on” and forgets all about them. I guess I’ll reread _The Trial_ by Kafka, which baffled me the first few times through but is making more and more sense the further we get into the GW-Ashcroft-Rummy _Schutzstafflel_ operation. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/105 "2003-09-15T15:41:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Nonsense. Think back to WWII, when soldiers from both sides were routinely executed when they were captured in civilian clothing. Yes, this has been discussed before. The wearing of a uniform is just one of the considerations mentioned in the Geneva Convention to determine whether a combatant is lawful or unlawful but it is not the only consideration and is not sufficient, per se, to make a ruling. In any case, it is up to the courts to determine this and the executive’s refusal to submit the issue to the courts is sufficient to consider the government of the USA is in breach of the law. Courts determine matters of fact and of law, not the executive. It is not sufficient for the Executive to say “take my word for it, we need no trial, the men are guilty”. Or is the USA a Banana Republic? You do realize that American forces have been doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan? They have been wearing local garb as a way to blend in with the population. Would you also agree that, if captured, they are to be considered “illegal combatants” and denied POW status? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/106 "2003-09-15T15:44:30Z")
One further point puzzles me: If the **crime** of these people was dressing up like a civilian and concealing their weapons… …_how do we know they’re not civilians who had concealed weapons?_ ---
**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 15, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/107 "2003-09-15T16:34:41Z")
Apparently I’m going to have to go over the Geneva Convention yet again, since I can’t just link to the Missed Content. Dammit. The basic law is quite simple. The GC only affords a prisoner status as a P.O.W., and the rights applicable to P.O.W.'s, if the prisoner fits into the following criteria: > [@](#): > > 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: > > 1. 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. > > 2. 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. > > 1. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. > > 2. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. > > 3. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. > > 4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. > B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: > > 5. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. > > 6. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. The analysis is somewhat different for the Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, but we’ll go down the categories anyway: Sections (1) and (2) do not apply because the Taliban were not the internationally recognized govenment of Afghanistan (that was the Northern Alliance), and they were therefore not a “Party” to the Convention. Since the Taliban were not a “Party,” all the stuff about militias and volunteer corps supporting a Party is irrelevant. Section (2) is further inapplicable because of the specific requirements that the militia members bear “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,” carry arms “openly,” and conduct operations “in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” The Taliban and al Qaeda were not real big on wearing appropriate insignia. It’s at least questionable whether al Qaeda carry arms openly, what with all the car bombs and such, and neither group conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of warfare. Section (3) does _not_ require status as a Party, since it applies to “Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.” But it does require the prisoner to be a member of _regular armed forces_. Now you _might_ be able to shoehorn rank and file Taliban soldiers into that category, but that’s a stretch to me. They had little or no formal command structure, no uniforms, no insignia, and basically none of the normal criteria of “regular armed forces.” No way do al Qaeda fighters fit the bill. Sections (4) and (5) are inapplicable on their face (as are the major Parts B & C). Section (6) might be thought to have some application, except that Taliban and al Qaeda did not “on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms.” They took up arms long before the Special Forces landed in Afghanistan. And again, you’ve got that whole “carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war” thing, which is more than a little problem. It is correct, as some have noted, that Article 5 provides for “a competent tribunal” to determine whether the captured person is entitled to P.O.W. status. But that provision only applies if “any doubt arise[s] as to whether persons . . . belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4.” Doubt does not airse based merely on speculation. Doubt requires actual evidence, and nobody has provided any evidence yet that would show any of the G’mo prisoners qualifies under any of the Article 4 definitions. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/108 "2003-09-15T16:52:26Z")
> [@](#): > > From **minty** Sections (1) and (2) do not apply because the Taliban were not the internationally recognized govenment of Afghanistan (that was the Northern Alliance), and they were therefore not a “Party” to the Convention. Since the Taliban were not a “Party,” all the stuff about militias and volunteer corps supporting a Party is irrelevant. Sorry, mate: > [@](#): > > From the **Geneva Convention** the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. > > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. > > Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. The burden of proof is quite clearly with the High ontracting Power. Under your definition, it would be essentially impossible for _anyone_ on the side of a _de facto_ government to fight a War. Also, you presumably do not believe PoW status is due many _Allied_ troops, nor those of the Northern Alliance? Should the similarly attired Northern Alliance fighters be detained for _their_ uniform-related war crimes? Come, **minty** , you are an intelligent sort. Do you honestly believe that the Convention was _not_ meant to cover war involving a nation with a _de facto_ government? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/109 "2003-09-15T17:29:24Z")
This is just plain silly. The US government has said it does not consider them to be POW and has accused them of wrongdoing. If the US government is coherent it has the obligation of ensuring they get a speedy trial to determine whether they are, in fact, guilty of the wrongdoing they are being accused of. I am not advocating one position or the order, I am just pointing out that the USA is being incoherent. If the guys are considered POW then treat them as such. If they are considered to have broken any laws, then treat them as such. But the US government is not doing one or the other. It has just kidnapped these people and is denying them their most basic human right to not be deprived of their freedom without due process of law. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/110 "2003-09-15T18:48:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Daisy Cutter \* > \*\*_Correction_ : The Absolutely not, should just be Absolutely, as I disagree %100. > > Also, when I say legal system I meant civil legal system. The last thing anybody needs is a bunch of costly and time consuming circus trials, where these idiots will be able to spread their propaganda. \*\* Do you mean a circus trial like the one which convicted Ramzi Yousef and an accomplice of the original World Trade Center bombing? Or do you mean a circus trial like that of Moussaoui, where Judge Brinkema has basically shut down frivolous motions but is also requiring the government to allow the defense access to exculpatory evidence (as a result of which Moussaoui, regardless of citizenship, may be sent to Gitmo for a tribunal) Given that our government has, in the past, successfully held trials involving both terrorists and trials involving classified information and espionage, why would a civil trial be doomed to be a circus of propoganda? Or is it possible that a civil trial is distasteful because it would bring up questions of jurisdiction and require a previously defined crime? I have far more faith in our judicial system then you dou, **Daisy Cutter** ---
**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 15, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/111 "2003-09-15T19:16:23Z")
**Meat** , that provision you quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Taliban were a “Party” for P.O.W. status. It simply says that the Convention applies to all conflicts _between two or more Parties_. The U.S. is a Party to the Convention. The Taliban and al Qaeda are not Parties to the Convention. Therefore, the conflict between the U.S., the Taliban, and al Qaeda is/was not governed by the Convention. Now, if you’re hung up on the last sentence in that quote, allow me to reprint it with emphasis added to the part you seem to have missed: > [@](#): > > Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it **in their mutual relations**. “Mutual,” as in “given and received equally” or “possessed in common.” The entire framework of the G.C., after all, is that the signatories agree to treat _each other_ by its terms, not _everybody_. > [@](#): > > Under your definition, it would be essentially impossible for anyone on the side of a _de facto_ government to fight a War. Nonsense. Just make sure you’re “regular armed forces” of that de facto government and you fit right in under section (A)(3). That means put on some uniforms, work within an established command structure, train your troops, abide by international rules on the conduct of warfare, etc. Your standard guerrilla force, obviously, would not qualify–nor should they. > [@](#): > > Also, you presumably do not believe PoW status is due many Allied troops, nor those of the Northern Alliance? The Taliban and al Qaeda would certainly not be governed by the G.C. in their treatment of any Allied prisoners. They’re not Parties to the Convention, after all. They would, however, still be subject to other relevant aspects of international law, particularly basic human rights laws that are supposed to be universally enforced and enforceable. (Fat luck with that, however.) > [@](#): > > Should the similarly attired Northern Alliance fighters be detained for their uniform-related war crimes? Huh? Nobody’s saying it’s a “war crime” to fight a war without a proper uniform. It just means that you might not be covered by the Geneval Convention’s provisions on P.O.W.'s if you get captured that way. Apart from that, however, do note that the Northern Alliance _are_ a Party to the Convention. As such, they would be due every obligation of the Convention if they were taken prisoner by another Party. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/112 "2003-09-15T20:10:42Z")
I do not need to discuss the issues being discussed here to know the US government is in the wrong just like I do not need to discuss whether I believe a person is guilty or not to know he cannont be held indefinitely without being tried. What the detainees were wearing, what they did or did not do is irrelevant. They deserve they day in court and as long as they do not get their day in court to determine what are their rights and their guilts i will continue to say the US government is infringing the most basic human right to freedom. Having said that, the Geneva Convention does not make the absolute assertion that not wearing a uniform leaves you out of ist protection and it admits people who have taken arms to resist an invader would be covered even if they wore no uniforms. The fact is that these things can be argued to death and they should be settled by the judiciary. That is why we have judges. I find it incredible that anyone would say that a legal case is so obvious it does not need to be brought before the judge. Especially in this case where it is most obviously NOT obvious and much subject to discussion. ---
**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 15, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/113 "2003-09-15T20:37:28Z")
I agree that _something_ needs to be done to resolve the status of these detainees. I disagree that the Geneva Convention mandates anything in particular, or that it even has any application. I also reject the notion that judges/the judiciary must or should resolve the issues regarding these prisoners. There is no fundamental human right to have any and all potential disputes solved by a court. Frankly, I don’t care _who_ resolves this problem, or how they go about it. My only complaint is that _some_ mechanism needs to be adopted to fairly distinguish the guilty from the innocent. I don’t care whether that’s a court, or a jury, or a military tribunal, or a panel set up by the CIA and the Department of defense. Continued delay in resolving those questions, however, is unconscionable. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/114 "2003-09-15T20:57:08Z")
\>\> There is no fundamental human right to have any and all potential disputes solved by a court. Not any and all but those affecting major issues of the government infringing on a person’s right to freedom and life. The government cannot be accuser, judge, jury and executioner. Separation of powers was invented for a reason. Checks and balances. Rule of law. That is what separates civilised countries fom banana republics. ---
**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 15, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/115 "2003-09-15T21:59:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > Not any and all but those affecting major issues of the government infringing on a person’s right to freedom and life. Why? So long as the mechanism for determining the dispute is fundamentally fair, why should it matter whether it’s a judge who carries it out? Is there something magic about judges that I’m failing to see? > [@](#): > > The government cannot be accuser, judge, jury and executioner. I hate to break this to you, but courts _are_ part of the government. > [@](#): > > Separation of powers was invented for a reason. Checks and balances. Rule of law. That is what separates civilised countries fom banana republics. Interesting theory, but I don’t buy it. I love the division of powers in the American system, but they’re neither necessary nor sufficient for fairness and justice to prevail. What separates a civilized country from a banana republic is its commitment to fairness and justice, not the particular methods it uses to accomplish those goals. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/116 "2003-09-15T22:24:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Why? So long as the mechanism for determining the dispute is fundamentally fair, why should it matter whether it’s a judge who carries it out? Is there something magic about judges that I’m failing to see? Who defines fair? In western civilization fair is defined as the outcome of a certain process where certain procedures and guarantees are followed. By definition, once you remove those the process isn’t “fair”. > [@](#): > > I hate to break this to you, but courts _are_ part of the government. I know it very well and you know I know it and that I meant the executive branch. > [@](#): > > Interesting theory, but I don’t buy it. I love the division of powers in the American system, but they’re neither necessary nor sufficient for fairness and justice to prevail. What separates a civilized country from a banana republic is its commitment to fairness and justice, not the particular methods it uses to accomplish those goals. \*\* wow. . WOW! So you are denying centuries of American and western civilization. So if president Bush tomorrow said he was denying those accused of drug offenses, or rape or child molestation or other heinous crimes the right to a trial before the judiciary and they would be “fairly” judged and sentenced by the police, you would not have a problem with that? WOW! I am speechless. I just can’t believe that. Every single civilized country has a separate judiciary to adjudicate the accusations of crimes brought by the government against individuals. Even countries where freedom is not so great have a (nominally) independent judiciary. And you are saying it is not really necesary? Wow. I don’t know what to say. I just can’t believe you can be serious. Please tell us you are not serious. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/117 "2003-09-15T22:27:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*I do not need to discuss the issues being discussed here to know the US government is in the wrong just like I do not need to discuss whether I believe a person is guilty or not to know he cannont be held indefinitely without being tried. What the detainees were wearing, what they did or did not do is irrelevant. They deserve they day in court and as long as they do not get their day in court to determine what are their rights and their guilts i will continue to say the US government is infringing the most basic human right to freedom. > \*\* That’s crap. **sailor** , this isn’t the first time the United States has detained persons during wartime – the only difference is that we’ve chosen not to classify them as POW’s – because they aren’t, as has been demonstrated. But let’s assume for a second that they ought to be POW’s. Where do the POWs get lawyers? Where do they get trials? The only get them if they’re being charged with something besides being a POW. Just like here. The treatment is largely parallel. The differences that I can see are a) we’re not making these guys work and b) we’re not compensating them for their time behind bars. POWs or not, enemy soldiers may be detained until the cessation of hostilities. Offensive operations against al Qaeda are still active, as are al Qaeda’s offensive operations against us. You are trying to stretch a technical distinction into a substantive issue that just is not there. If they were POWs, they’d sit in Guantanamo until we beat al Qaeda. As illegal combatants, they’ll sit in Guantanamo until we beat al Qaeda. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/118 "2003-09-15T22:36:12Z")
**manhattan** , as far as I am concerned, taking into account the loads of blatant lies which the US government has been spewing and taking into account the conditions of incommunication under which the detainees are being held, and taking into account they are not allowed acces to lawyers, and considering the principle of “inocent until proven guilty”, it is my opinion that the US government is infringing on the rights of people who are not guilty of anything unil proven otherwise. Declaring “war” on an organization and then saying you can hold people accused of belonging to it indefinitely without trial but they are not POWs is just so . . . I mean, can we declare then war on the drug cartels and do the same with people accused of belonging to them? Pedofile rings? Where does it end? Sorry, I’m not buying it. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/119 "2003-09-15T22:36:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* Wonderful. Acusing people who disagree with you of being pro-terrorist. I find this despicable. \*\* Hold on and let me check if I care what you find despicable. Nope, sorry, I don’t care a whit what you find despicable. However, I do care that you misrepresent my position. I’ve not done what you accuse me of. What I’ve labeled pro-terrorist is the lies. “They should gain POW status” is not pro-terrorist. Comparisons to gulags and death camps is sure as hell pro-terrorist. Lies about their treatment is pro-terrorist. And yes, supporting their release at this time is, by definition, pro-terrorist except for those who were taliban, not Al Qaeda and who are Afghani citizens. ISTR that all or most of those guys were sent back already. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/120 "2003-09-15T22:41:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* **manhattan** , as far as I am concerned, taking into account the loads of blatant lies which the US government has been spewing and taking into account the conditions of incommunication under which the detainees are being held, and taking into account they are not allowed acces to lawyers, and considering the principle of “inocent until proven guilty”, it is my opinion that the US government is infringing on the rights of people who are not guilty of anything unil proven otherwise. > \*\* Where, precisely, does “innocent until proven guilty” show up in the Geneva Conventions or elsewhere in the laws of warfare? If you’re picked up on a battlefield taking up arms against the enemy, you’re interned until hostilities are over. Always. This isn’t a new thing, nor is it particular to the Americans or this century or anything else. You’re making it up. When we took prisioners during WWII or Korea or Viet Nam, do you think there was a tribunal to find out whether they were _really_ German or North Korean or Chinese or Vietnamese soldiers? I don’t think you think that at all, and I question why you’re trying to invent new treatment wholesale here. I’d really like to know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124.md?page=7)