No, YOU read it again. Here, I’ll help draw your attention to the crucial language:
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.”
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.
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.
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.
We all remember the humiliating photos which shocked world opinion of the prisoners being transferred to Guantanamo.
This is what the US military teaches its own personnel:
The European Union said America should not treat them like that:
The Red Cross, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have all been critical of the US government.
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.
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.
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?
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.
" 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."
…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…
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.
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.
Agreed. They are PoWs by default.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Brutus, it is clear from the context that I meant “coerced interrogations” but, in case it was not clear from the context it is clear from my later posts. Now, I will go slowly here. This is my post:
And this is Rickjay’s answer to that post which he quotes:
You can clearly see that my post which he cites does not even contain the word “interrogation” 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?
[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.
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.
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?
