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.
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:
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.
Sorry, link (Big PDF!)
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
Several countries have protested and even Colin Powell has expressed concern:
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.
Ah, 'k.
Thanks
It’s not “sophistry” at all. “Subject to” 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.
Sure, until “competent authoirty” determines they have other status. So what?
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.
I assume it was made by “competent authority.” Again, so what?
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).
Sincw when is GWB either competent or a legitimate authority?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What the hell are you talking about?
Here is what you wrote that I quoted:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi, lawyer speaking. Where do I send you my bill?
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. 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:
And this is your answer to that post which you quoted:
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.)
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:
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.
“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.” 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 of the Guantanamo detention facility? Note in particular this caption: “The men are kept in cells 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. (That particular fact appears on the last page of the reprinted NYT story.)
And hey, here’s a detailed description of the curent facility, which notes:
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:
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?
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.
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:
Oooh, the scary 98-year-old! Watch out, he’ll hit you with his colostomy bag!