# 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:** 9
**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 16, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/161 "2003-09-16T15:46:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > **minty** , I think this debate between us might have some value to other readers, and I would hate to think it might become a more personal quarrel, but I think you are stretching the following sentence in, dare I say it, a **december** -esque manner: I’ve > [@](#): > > Read it again. No, YOU read it again. Here, I’ll help draw your attention to the crucial language: > [@](#): > > All persons taken into custody by US forces will be provided with the protections of the GPW **until some other legal status is determined by competent authority**. > [@](#): > > “No legal status” is not “some other legal status”. You have quite the talent for ignoring the written word. In point of fact, Meat, I clearly and unambiguously stated “[t]hey have no particular legal status **under international law**.” They do have “some other legal status” under U.S. law: “unlawful combatants.” > [@](#): > > “Rummy at a press conference” is not the “competent authority” referred to. The legal status of the detainees has been determined by the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, _et al._, to be “unlawful combatants.” That is a determination by a “competent authority,” even if you don’t like the outcome of that determination. _Nothing_ in section 1-5(2) of those Army regs requires adjudication by a court or tribunal. If they’d wanted to require such adjudication, they would have said so. They didn’t. Instead, they went with “competent authority.” Deal with it. ---
**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 16, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/162 "2003-09-16T15:50:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/163 "2003-09-16T16:04:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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?!\*\* **sailor,** nothing in the Geneva Conventions forbids the interrogation of prisoners. Interrogation of prisoners of war is absolutely and without question a routine procedure that is followed by every real army in the world. There is nothing, not one word, in the Geneva conventions that prohibits routine interrogation, just as long as you aren’t torturing anyone or taking basic privileges from them for not answering other questions. The GC states that prisoners of war MUST provide their rank, first and last name, and date of birth - they are obligated to do so and can be punished by withholding of privileges if they don’t. (Article 17.) However, nothing in the GC prohibits the imprisoning power from asking them other things and nothing prohibits the prisoner from answering the questions (a rather obvious one a prisoner would, and should, answer, is any medical condition that the infimary would need to know, such as blood type or allergies to medication.) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/164 "2003-09-16T17:22:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > **sailor,** nothing in the Geneva Conventions forbids the interrogation of prisoners. Interrogation of prisoners of war is absolutely and without question a routine procedure that is followed by every real army in the world. There is nothing, not one word, in the Geneva conventions that prohibits routine interrogation, just as long as you aren’t torturing anyone or taking basic privileges from them for not answering other questions. > > The GC states that prisoners of war MUST provide their rank, first and last name, and date of birth - they are obligated to do so and can be punished by withholding of privileges if they don’t. (Article 17.) However, nothing in the GC prohibits the imprisoning power from asking them other things and nothing prohibits the prisoner from answering the questions (a rather obvious one a prisoner would, and should, answer, is any medical condition that the infimary would need to know, such as blood type or allergies to medication.) The fact is that the USA **is** coercing the detainees. This is well documented and is not denied by the US government. To say they are just “chatting” with the detainees who then amicably give out information is disingenous. The fact is that they have been psycologically tortured (and possibly physically) in order to extract information out of them. If the prisoners are on such great terms with the keepers that they willingly share information with them, why can’t the press be witness to this wonderful friendship? Why aren’t the prisoners allowed to publicly state that they are not being coerced? Let us not play silly games. The prisoners are being mistreated. I remember an article saying how they were being interrogated and how they played good cop / bad cop etc. How they were someimes interrogated by females because that was humiliating to them and broke them down. Give me a break. The USA is NOT respecting these people’s most basic human rights. They have being threatened with being tortured which is torture in itself. Anyone who has been locked up in a small room with a guy who has power of life and death over him knows how terrifying this is. If you have never been there you cannot imagine what it is like. I have been there a couple of times in my lifetime and it leaves scars which last for years, if not for ever. There is nothing as degrading and humiliating. It is contrary to the most basic principles of humanity and civilization. It is degrading to those who do it as much as to those who are the victims. The USA is falling very low with this. Look at Argentina and Chile who resorted to this type of treatment to “save the country”. Two generations later those countries are still scarred by the enormity of the crimes and are struggling to come to terms and understand how human beings can be capable of such evil. It is made even worse by the fact that the victims were of the same country but Guantanamo is just as bad if not worse in that it accepts that Afghans are lesser human beings than American citizens which is unacceptable to me. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/165 "2003-09-16T18:27:01Z")
The US government is playing a game of acting stupid. They say the prisoners _are_ being treated according to the Geneva conventions. When it is immediately pointed out that this is just not true they say, “well, these are not POWs, the are terrorists”. When it is pointed out that if they are accused of crimes they should be tried in court the say “no, they are not accused of anything they are illegal combatants” but we are treating them according to the Geneva conevntions and so the whole thing goes around and around, never to be resolved. The fact is that they are NOT being, in fact, treated according to the Geneva Convention or anything close to it. The Geneva Convention prohibits interrogations, it requires that the prisoners be housed in accommodations similar to those of the troops guarding them, it requires they be allowed to keep their clothes and personal effects, that they not be held in prison cells or isolated, that they be able to communiacte with their families, etc. The USA is NOT treating them like this at all. > [@](#): > > [Howstuffworks](http://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war3.htm) > > if there is any doubt as to the applicability of POW status, the rules regarding prisoners of war must be followed until a proper tribunal is convened to determine whether POW status is applicable on a case-by-case basis. When the United States systematically denied POW status to captured Taliban combatants in the 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan, it was in violation of the third Geneva Convention. > > On the topic of questioning POWs, the interrogation tactics that seem to be common practice in a time of war are all illegal. The third Geneva Convention outlaws everything beyond the simple asking of a question: > > No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. > > Confinement is illegal (POWs can’t be held in prison cells unless it is for their own protection), but internment is allowed – they may be kept within certain boundaries. We all remember the humiliating photos which shocked world opinion of the prisoners being transferred to Guantanamo. > [@](#): > > [http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08breach](http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08breach) > > The label of “terrorist” attached by Washington to some detainees, notably members of al-Qaida, does not apply and the term “unlawful combatant” is unknown in international law. The principle is that anyone captured bearing arms is presumed to be a prisoner of war in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Only a competent tribunal can determine the status of the accused (1). > > The transfer of prisoners to Guantanamo Bay compounds the legal confusion over the status of the detainees. According to the Geneva Convention, “prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated” and “likewise … must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity” (Article 13). > > Conditions of transfer are subject to the same rules: “The transfer of prisoners of war shall always be effected humanely and in conditions not less favourable than those under which the forces of the Detaining Power are transferred” (Article 46). This is what the US military teaches its own personnel: > [@](#): > > [http://www.armystudyguide.com/geneva\_convention/studyguide.htm](http://www.armystudyguide.com/geneva_convention/studyguide.htm) > > As a POW, what is the only information you are required to give? > Your name, age, rank and service number. > [@](#): > > [http://www.randomwalks.com/archive/2003/03/breaking\_down\_the\_geneva\_convention.php](http://www.randomwalks.com/archive/2003/03/breaking_down_the_geneva_convention.php) > > The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not “prisoners of war”, but “unlawful combatants”. The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (Al Qaeda) must be regarded as prisoners of war. > > Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they “shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal”. But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light. The European Union said America should not treat them like that: > [@](#): > > [http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-01/22/article7.shtml](http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-01/22/article7.shtml) > > E.U. Says U.S. Must Apply Geneva Convention to Al-Qaeda Prisoners > > The European Union said that suspected Al-Qaeda fighters held in a U.S. naval base in Cuba should be treated in line with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. > > The United States says the detainees at the Guantanamo base, who were captured in Afghanistan, are “illegal combatants”, not “prisoners of war”, and do not come under groups entitled to rights enshrined within the Conventions. > > But E.U. foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said the prisoners should be held in accordance with the international agreement. > > “We believe behavior towards these people is dictated by international conventions,” Solana told Spanish public television channel TVE Monday, January 21. > > “The Geneva Convention should apply to all people arrested in such circumstances,” he said. > > “Upholding our values, our principles and our conduct is fundamental to our total battle against fanaticism and terrorism,” he added. The Red Cross, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have all been critical of the US government. > [@](#): > > [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/pows-j23.shtml](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/pows-j23.shtml) > > The International Committee of the Red Cross said January 21 that those being held by American forces must be classified as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention and were entitled to all the protections offered by it. The ICRC is the international body entrusted with enforcement of the Geneva Convention, and its decision is a political blow to the Bush administration. > > Red Cross officials added that some of the terms used by the US government to describe the Afghan prisoners, such as “battlefield detainees,” have no legal meaning. The Red Cross has further charged that the US is abusing prisoners in Afghanistan, where it is holding 360 captured fighters in Kandahar in an unsheltered stockade, exposed to the bitter winter cold. > > Amnesty International joined the Red Cross and other groups in asking the US government to define the prisoners as POWs. “It is not the prerogative of the Secretary of Defense or any other U.S. administration official to determine whether those held in Guantanamo are POWs,” the group said in a statement. “An independent US court, following due process, is the appropriate organ. > The housing of prisoners in open-air, chain-link cages six feet by eight feet with concrete floors is both inhuman and a violation of minimum standards set by the Geneva Convention. Article 25 stipulates: “Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area… > > “The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets. > > “The premises provided for the use of prisoners of war individually or collectively shall be entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted, in particular between dusk and lights out… There is no doubt the prisoners are being punished and mistreated without due process. They are kept prisoners in cells and are interrogated to extract information from them. The have been threatened with being handed over to Egypt or other places where they would be tortured. In fact i believe some prisoners have been sent by the USA to countries where the USA knew they would be tortured. It is wrong. It is immoral and it should stop. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/166 "2003-09-16T18:44:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*The fact is that the USA **is** coercing the detainees. This is well documented and is not denied by the US government. To say they are just “chatting” with the detainees who then amicably give out information is disingenous. The fact is that they have been psycologically tortured (and possibly physically) in order to extract information out of them. \*\* Do you have evidence of such torture? > [@](#): > > If the prisoners are on such great terms with the keepers that they willingly share information with them, why can’t the press be witness to this wonderful friendship? **sailor,** I don’t know what’s going on in Guantanamo. Perhaps they are being psychologically tortured and perhaps not; I don’t know and neither do you. That wasn’t my point. Maybe you forgot this, but I STARTED THE THREAD. I’m not a devotee of Pees. Bush. My point was merely that your statement, that **interrogating prisoners is forbidden by the Geneva Convention,** is absolutely, completely, one hundred percent wrong. You made a completely false statement. I have cured you of a little bit of ignorance, for which you should be grateful. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/167 "2003-09-16T20:25:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > My point was merely that your statement, that **interrogating prisoners is forbidden by the Geneva Convention,** is absolutely, completely, one hundred percent wrong. You made a completely false statement. You disagree with me and with all the sources I have cited backing me up. 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. That is what I believe and that is what the great majority of the world believes. If it is not true the US government would do well to prove us wrong. Why does it not do it? Why? What is it hiding? ---
**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 16, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/168 "2003-09-16T23:12:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* That is what I believe and that is what the great majority of the world believes. If it is not true the US government would do well to prove us wrong. Why does it not do it? Why? What is it hiding? \*\* Nothing, but unfortunately for both sides of the argument, the ICRC does not report what it finds during visits to detainees except what they’ve personally done (deliver messages) and whether they have had unfettered access to the detainees (they have). (To forestall any hijack, I understand and respect their reasons for not reporting.) Offering additional inducements for cooperation is not coercion and is common when dealing with detainees in both civilian and military situations. Exception: when the “additional inducement” is in fact a necessity. Using standard investigatorial techniques is also not coercion. If the detainees _are_ being coerced, in a legal sense, that would be very troubling. Do you have evidence that they are, for example, being deprived sleep or fed religiously-inappropriate foods or the like? The stories I’ve read recounting the stories of released detainees sound like pretty standard prisoner-keeping to me, but of course I’ve not read them all. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/169 "2003-09-17T00:17:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\* > If the detainees _are_ being coerced, in a legal sense, that would be very troubling. Do you have evidence that they are, for example, \*being deprived sleep \*or fed religiously-inappropriate foods or the like? The stories I’ve read recounting the stories of released detainees sound like pretty standard prisoner-keeping to me, but of course I’ve not read them all. \*\* …sleep deprivition have already been cited in two above posts, one by myself, and one by sailor… [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2968458.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2968458.stm) " The lights were so strong, you couldn’t differentiate between day and light. If you tried to cover your face to sleep the soldiers came in and told you not to do that." [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6601339.htm](http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6601339.htm) "Lights are kept on 24 hours a day, and guards pace the rows constantly. " …now you could argue that keeping the lights on 24 hours a day isn’t evidence of sleep deprivation, but seriously, what would the effect of 24 hour light be? …again, refering to my earlier posts, how many of those detained at Guantanamo are victims of overzealous Northern Alliance troops, Pakistani soldiers looking for extra cash, or genuine mistakes? As I conceeded in my earlier post, the Boston Globe article that I cited was a year old, but the BBC transcript was broadcast well after the last lot of prisoners were released from Guantanamo. …so can someone please tell me, why Wasir Mohamed, taxi driver and friend of the released Abassin Sayed, shouldn’t be allowed an open, fair trial to plead his case for innocence? Just ONE, valid compelling reason will suffice… ---
**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, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/170 "2003-09-17T01:53:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **You disagree with me and with all the sources I have cited backing me up. 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.** 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. It doesn’t matter what’s happening at Guantanamo; your statement was that the interrogation of prisoners is forbidden by the GC. That is false. (I am assuming, of course, that you know what the word “interrogation” means.) It’s that simple. **If you don’t believe me, read the Geneva Conventions.** That’s MY source - I went through the entire section on POWs today. ---
**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, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/171 "2003-09-17T02:26:20Z")
Let us see who is being dense here > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > > It doesn’t matter what’s happening at Guantanamo; your statement was that the interrogation of prisoners is forbidden by the GC. That is false. > > (I am assuming, of course, that you know what the word “interrogation” means.) > > It’s that simple. If you don’t believe me, read the Geneva Conventions. That’s MY source - I went through the entire section on POWs today. Let us replay that again in slow motion > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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.** Shall we have a vote here to determine who is being dense? ---
**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, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/172 "2003-09-17T08:24:53Z")
> [@](#): > > They do have “some other legal status” under U.S. law: “unlawful combatants.” I do not believe you. Please point to the relevant statute wherein this is defined under US law. The President cannot make US law _on his own_. > [@](#): > > Nothing in section 1-5(2) of those Army regs requires adjudication by a court or tribunal. Agreed. They are PoWs by default. > [@](#): > > That is a determination by a “competent authority” And yet the next section describes the convening authority of a competent tribunal composed of three commissioned officers, one of whom has a field grade. Your interpretation comprises an _enormous_ disparity in language between section 1-5 and 1-6. ---
**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, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/173 "2003-09-17T10:35:57Z")
**minty** , I owe you an apology - I now believe you that US law defines “unlawful combatant”. [Executive order](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/exec_order.html). I would still be interested to hear how this tallies with the US Army regs. Do they simply _not apply_ any more? ---
**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, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/174 "2003-09-17T10:44:32Z")
Note also that military tribunals are still _required_ for [unlawful combatants](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1). > [@](#): > > Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. ---
**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, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/175 "2003-09-17T10:58:47Z")
**SentientMeat** , the US government cannot lawfully make laws which would be unconstitutional or which would deprive a person of their basic human rights as embodied in the US Constitution, the UN charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our most basic understanding of morality. “Unlawful Combatant” can be anything the president wants it to be but a person cannot lawfully or morally be held indefinitely beceuse he is accused of wrongdoing with no trial or process of law. An “unlawful combatant” is still a human person entitled to all the protections of the Constitution and of the Declaration of Human Rights. ---
**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, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/176 "2003-09-17T11:11:23Z")
**sailor** , US law _does_ recognise the term “unlawful combatant”, as in Ex Parte Quirin which I linked to above. However, I agree that even this document _specifically rules out_ indefinite detention. (Unfortunately, the _location_ of the camp further muddies the waters, as in [this case](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=339&page=763).) What I wish to establish is whether “illegal combatant” is a further addition to the list of US Army designations or whether the regulations are simply not being followed any more. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/177 "2003-09-17T11:14:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > The US government is playing a game of acting stupid. They say the prisoners _are_ being treated according to the Geneva conventions. When it is immediately pointed out that this is just not true they say, “well, these are not POWs, the are terrorists”. When it is pointed out that if they are accused of crimes they should be tried in court the say “no, they are not accused of anything they are illegal combatants” but we are treating them according to the Geneva conevntions and so the whole thing goes around and around, never to be resolved. The fact is that they are NOT being, in fact, treated according to the Geneva Convention or anything close to it. **The Geneva Convention prohibits interrogations** , it requires that the prisoners be housed… Bolding mine. And I know how I am going to vote! I don’t suppose you have a cite for: (Preferably from a reputable news source) > [@](#): > > …The fact is that the USA is coercing the detainees. This is well documented and is not denied by the US government. To say they are just “chatting” with the detainees who then amicably give out information is disingenous. The fact is that they have been psycologically tortured (and possibly physically) in order to extract information out of them… ---
**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, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/178 "2003-09-17T11:39:24Z")
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: > [@](#): > > 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 **Rickjay** ’s answer **to that post** which he quotes: > [@](#): > > 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. 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. 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. Would you like us to start a thread in the pit to see how many people see it your way and how many people see it mine? I am quite certain I would come out on top so feel free to take up the challenge. What do you say? You want to go ahead with this? ---
**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, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/179 "2003-09-17T12:33:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > **minty** , I owe you an apology - I now believe you that US law defines “unlawful combatant”. [Executive order](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/exec_order.html). YES! In you FACE, Meat! [sub]Oh, wait. Don’t wanna get flagged for unsportsmanlike. Take the high road, green. Act like you’ve been there before.[/sub] Uh, what I mean is that no apology is necessary. Just a friendly debate, amigo. Glad to be of assistance. 😉 > [@](#): > > I would still be interested to hear how this tallies with the US Army regs. Do they simply _not apply_ any more? Not sure, since I haven’t read them all. I would assume that there are some kind of regs on the treatment of non-GC prisoners, but I don’t know where they would be. Nor do I know whether they’re even being enforced in this instance, given the adminsitration’s general insistence on being complete dickheads when it comes to this war. > [@](#): > > Note also that military tribunals are still required for unlawful combatants. No, they aren’t. The provision you cite says that unlawful combatants are “subject to” trial by military tribunals. “Subject to” is discretionary language–they _may_ be so tried, but do not need to be. ---
**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, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124/180 "2003-09-17T12:49:08Z")
> [@](#): > > No, they aren’t. The provision you cite says that unlawful combatants are “subject to” trial by military tribunals. “Subject to” is discretionary language–they may be so tried, but do not need to be. Putting aside whether or not this is blatant sophistry, I wish to explore the precise chronology regarding the legal status of a person captured by US forces. Under US Army regulations, persons captured by US forces fall into four categories:[ul][li] EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War)[_] Recommended Retained Personnel (RP)[_] Innocent Civilian who should be releasedCivilian Internee (CI)[/ul]Note that there is _no such determination_ as “unlawful combatant” - I assume that “unlawful combatant” is merely another designation to be tagged on here (even though CI would appear taylor made for AlQaeda suspects). 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. [/li] 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. At this moment, under US Army regulation 5-1 (2), **is he a Prisoner of War**? 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? When _these persons_ were captured, what was their **legal status**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/back-to-gitmo-when-the-heck-will-the-prisoners-fates-be-decided/201124.md?page=10)