Nitpick; you’re wrong on this. The Geneva Convention articles related to Prisoners of War were first signed in 1929 as the Prisoners of War Convention. Amendments were made in 1950, which is why the charter as it currently exists is said to have been signed in 1950, but 95% of it existed in the previous version and was in force during WWII.
The Geneva Conventions have been updated and added to since the first one, many times.
manhattan, your position would be valid if the United States was according POW status to the Guantanamo detainees. They are instead denying that these men are POWs, which is precisely the problem here. I would have no problem with them being held AS POWs, providing the USA were to provide some definition of the scope of the war they’re prisoners of - recent events would suggest that the “War on terrorism” does not have a clear objective or end state. But, either way is fine with me. Holding them indefinitely without any legal status is NOT fine.
The imprecise terminology you use–“certain process,” “certain procedures”–undermines you claim that only judicial proceedings can be regarded as fair.
That is quite possibly the most pathetic strawman I’ve seen all month. Or is it just that you really can’t see a difference between eliminating established procedures and making up new procedures where none previously existed?
Once again, I repeat my original point: There is no fundamental human right to have any and all disputes resolved by a court. Depending on the circumstances, any number of alternative mechanisms can be employed that result in a fundamentally fair process and an outcome worthy of respect and enforcement.
C’mon people, the term ‘War on terrorism’ is an abstract and/or a political slogan - has no other meaning. You do all understand that, right ? To think otherwise is beyond logic: Orwell meets Theatre of the Absurd. You are just having a little fun in this thread, aren’t you ? Or have you all been drinking the same water as the White House . . .
They’re pawns, plain and simple. And Conservatives love it. QED.
Next up: David Blaine really is a ‘magician’
Persons captured on the battlefield, even whether they are illegal combatants or not, are detained for the duration of hostilities. A person wearing the insignia of a medic who engages in combat, for instance, is an illegal combatant. If he’s picked up with a bunch of soldiers, both he and they (POW’s) are held for the duration. He is not “without status”-- he has a status as an illegal combatant captured in battle, as opposed to the soldiers who have the status of Prisoners of War. He may also be subject to charges above and beyond his status as a combatant – if that were to occur, he would be tried by a military tribunal.
That’s exactly what is happening in this instance.
No, the war on terrorism is not like the war on poverty or the war on drugs or the war on illiteracy or what have you – it’s World War III. It’s an actual shooting war with identifiable enemies and actual dead people.
Look for “World War III, the War on Terrorism FAQ,” coming soon (well, I hope soon – stoopid job wants me to earn my compensation) to a GD forum near you.
There is an interesting question here regarding the distinction between fighting crime and fighting a war. I’m not sure what the criteria are for each–anyone wanna start a thread?–but I’ll tell you that I’m morally certain there is a war being fought against al Qaeda (not a general “war against terrorism”), and there was a war fought against the Taliban.
El Presidente declared the latter war over quite some time ago. Ergo, the Taliban detainees should, barring some kind of prosecution for additional crimes, be released and repatriated to their homeland. What happens to them after that is, frankly, not a matter I particularly give a damn about.
Lots of statements have been made. “Both sides routinely shot soldiers who were in civilian clothes.” I question this and haven’t seen any proog yet. “This is war and the Geneva Convention applies.” There was quite a discussion about the Convention until, I guess, it was finally tacitly agreed to drop that. Precedent of treatment of POW’s in previous wars was cited. As to that, in WWII a clear statement as to when the war would be over was made. Unconditional surrender of all enemies. And when that end was achieved, POW’s were repatriated.
Our Grand Poobah claimed total victory in Afghanistan a long time ago so when will the Afghan POW’s be repatriated?
The Poobah also announced the end of the war in Iraq with nothing left but a few cleanup details, such as nation building. When will the Iraqi POW’s be repatriated?
It might be argued that the continued violence in Iraq justifies not repatriating them. Again, using WWII as a model, I heard Conoleeza Rice argue that the trouble in Iraq was similar to the so-called “werewolves” in Germany. But, assuming for the moment that was true and not the same crap that she and the Poobah shovel out as a matter of course, even if the “werewolves” existed their activities didn’t stop the repatriation of German POW’s.
Legal hairsplitting about POW’s, Geneva Conventions, whether people are entitiled to be judged by a court, or by the mailman aside, all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. I think one of these certainly ought to be the right to have their fate decided as soon as possible and to have some means of getting assistance in defending themselves against charges, assuming any are ever brought.
I don’t see how it is possible to defend our actions in Guantanamo Bay without the most egregious sophistry.
Lots of statements have been made. “Both sides routinely shot soldiers who were in civilian clothes.” I question this and haven’t seen any proog yet. “This is war and the Geneva Convention applies.” There was quite a discussion about the Convention until, I guess, it was finally tacitly agreed to drop that. Precedent of treatment of POW’s in previous wars was cited. As to that, in WWII a clear statement as to when the war would be over was made. Unconditional surrender of all enemies. And when that end was achieved, POW’s were repatriated.
Our Grand Poobah claimed total victory in Afghanistan a long time ago so when will the Afghan POW’s be repatriated?
The Poobah also announced the end of the war in Iraq with nothing left but a few cleanup details, such as nation building. When will the Iraqi POW’s be repatriated?
It might be argued that the continued violence in Iraq justifies not repatriating them. Again, using WWII as a model, I heard Conoleeza Rice argue that the trouble in Iraq was similar to the so-called “werewolves” in Germany. But, assuming for the moment that was true and not the same crap that she and the Poobah shovel out as a matter of course, even if the “werewolves” existed their activities didn’t stop the repatriation of German POW’s.
Legal hairsplitting about POW’s, Geneva Conventions, whether people are entitiled to be judged by a court, or by the mailman aside, all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. I think one of these certainly ought to be the right to have their fate decided as soon as possible and to have some means of getting assistance in defending themselves against charges, assuming any are ever brought.
I don’t see how it is possible to defend our actions in Guantanamo Bay without the most egregious sophistry.
If the standard is “foolproof,” may you never post another assertion or opinion again. There is no legal or ethical requirement that we be 100% certain of a suspect’s afffilliation as a prerequisite to detaining them. What should be required, but apparently is not, is some sort of reasonable mechanism for separating the innocent from the guilty.
As for killing 'em, cry me a river. If the U.S. is engaged in a war against al Qaeda–and I believe that we are–then the only question is whether the operation is reasonable, based on the likelihood of success, the probable benefits of success, and the likely costs of the operation. If we have good intelligence that Osama is napping on a cot in the middle of the Islamabad Home for Sympathetic and Photogenic Orphans, that building is going down, amigo.
No complaint, except possibly in re: the process for weeding out.
Don’t be daft. Others may or may not be enemy combatants, and may or may not be killed, wounded, or captured in combat. Depends on the circumstances. Two years ago, we could have ethically killed every Taliban on the face of the planet. Since that war is now finished (allegedly, according to Fearless Misleader), the ethics have changed. But if any of the SOB’s takes another shot at us, that sumbitch should be engaged in combat, captured, and/or killed. Anything less is just silly.
Once again, for the gazillionth time, at the very least the destruction of al Qaeda is required. Re-ask the question when Osama is dead, his financial network entirely destroyed, his deputies dead or captured, the networks activities at a stop, and I’ll think this question is more than just trolling.
You misspelled “the president.” Reask the question, if you’re too stubborn to read the umpteen repetitions of the answer.
You misspelled “the president” again. I suppose when the new government asks for them back. Have they been (physically) expatriated? I thought they were mostly being detained locally.
Hey, I’m with you there. The United States would legally have been within its rights to have oil-drum trials locally in Afghanistan followed by executions of the guilty. That that was not done was because they were thought to be intelligence assets. And because they had the good fortune to be detained rather than executed, substantially all of them will eventually be released. Do you really believe that it would be a human rights victory for them to be executed instead of detained, or are you just making this up?