Seems like you’re doing this when you’re ignoring the words:
The “doubt” is in 1-6 a. 1-6 b. does not follow on from this, it is independent of it.
Thus, if you capture someone and they themselves claim POW status, then you must try them.
No, as I explained in the post with the large red words, section 1-5 a 2) gives EPW status to everyone and UCMJ proceedings is required to change this via a tribunal if there is a doubt that it is appropriate. Clearly, you think that EPW is so clearly inappropriate, that the doubt is so strong, that the tribunal will take all of ten minutes. I must again place the bullhorn to my lips and bellow at your curiously unresponsive basilar membrane from mere inches away that 190-8 still requires a tribunal to change the default EPW status.
I have not commented whether I like or dislike those regulations, but actually I do wish the US followed them to the letter, which they clearly are not.
No, 1-5 a 2 ends with:
Not tribunal. No mention of a tribunal for everyone is made, and 1-6 clearly defines that tribunals are only used if there is doubt. And due to the EC designation by ‘competent authority’, there is no doubt in a legal sense.
And 1-5 3) states that the designation proceeds under the UCMJ and Manual of Coutrs Martial. Again, if Bush is the “competent authority”, can you show me the egally mandated transcript of the UCMJ proceedings in which he acted as presiding officer?
Dear Brutus, let us enact a simple exercise in reading comprehension of this sentence:
I was an X until I was a Y.
What does this sentence mean? It means that at some point in time I was an X, and then at a later point in time I changed to become a Y. If had always been a Y and never an X, the word until in that sentence would be being used incorrectly. The sentence would not describe the situation.
Agreed?
Jack Straw has announced that the four men will be returned to the UK within weeks.
Brutus- let’s stop arguing about this and wait for a case to go to SCOTUS as one eventually will.
Now that all the Brits are out of the hell-hole, perhaps it will be more likely that British Lawyers will make demands on the US authorities to explain and justify their position. I for one will certainly be contributing to any fighting fund being put up to expose the blatent US disregard for the GC and the rights of POWs.
Mark my words, this will be settled in the courts and the courts will eventually rule in favor of the US’ treaty obligations being binding. This probably won’t occur until after 2008 but, like the concentration camps for the Japanese in the 40s, Guantanamo will eventually be recognised by the courts and by history as major blots on th US’ claim to have rule of law, separation of powers and to be seen as a fount of justice.
Note that when the four men return to the UK, the government (executive) will have no power over them. In this respect the separation of powers is much greater in the UK than in the US. Ditto for the Rule of Law and the existence of Justice.
Wrong again. 1-5 3 states that the punishment of ‘EPW, CI, and RP’ is under the UCMJ, not EC.
No need. Certainly not under 190-8. Why you would throw in the arbitrary requirment for GW to preside at a UCMJ proceeding is a bit mystifying; certainly no regulation that you have cited states any such need.
No offense, but play your word games with someone else. The law is clearly on the side of the administration on this one.
Just for my edification, is it your position that the inmates ever had EPW status? For if not, US Army reg 190-08 would be being ignored.
No, it relates to punishment of those suspected of offences which impugn their default EPW status.
Section 1-5 3) clearly does, despite your rather amusing little dance.
Brutus and SentientMeat:
The argument about POW status has been done to death over the past couple of years and has been a little bit of light relief while we waited to find out whether our boys were coming home. But it is a bit of a hijack all the same. Now we know that they are coming home and will not face imprisonment and torture anymore, there are more important questions…
Brutus, you seem to be a Bush apologist.
How do you explain the imminent release of these ‘dangerous’ people?
Sentient Meat: what do you make of Straw’s defence of the governments position over the past three years while we all knew that British Subjects were being tortured by the US military. HAs Straw got any defence at all?
Yes, complete honesty: “We think that Britain cannot afford to lose the economic and political benefits of kow-towing to the US no matter how despicable an administration their hooplehead electorate votes in, and so we objected to their blatant disregard of their own regulations in a voice so quiet it could be mistaken for a distant mosquito.”
I would applaud the man until my palms were raw.
And to the best of my knowledge, those poor souls who meet those lofty criteria are being granted tribunals. Cite. But 1-6 b is not some blanket protection; the detainee must meet specific criteria.
1-5 3 has nothing to do with status. It is only about punishment of three specifically stated classes of detainees: EPW, CI, and RP.
And section 1-5 2) states that everyone gets EPW status until it is changed. If the detainees never, ever had EPW status, US Army reg 190-8 is being ignored, yes?
It’s like impressment happening all over again, only in reverse. And England are our bitches.
1812, here we come!
Which happens pretty quickly. It’s not like GW has to personally declare each EC by name.
For the sake of trivia, the Executive Order regarding EC. In a legal sense, I don’t know if an EO trumps AR, but I suppose the courts mull that one.
How quickly, after capture?
So you accept that AR may well be being ignored here, at the court’s behest? Like I’ve said all along, that’s a different debate.
I don’t know. Seconds? Days? Not a meaningful stretch of time I bet, since guidelines have been issued (from a ‘competent authority’, no less) defining who qualifies as a EC, and I presume the military has mechanisms in place to deal with them.
Quite possible, though I don’t believe it to be the case. It does look like 1-6 B is being upheld (per BBC cite above), but maybe the tribunals are of a different nature?
You honestly believe this to be the case?
Let us imagine the scenario: The Northern Alliance, a bunch of guys with Kalashnikovs but no uniforms who have been offered hundreds of US dollars for each “combatant” they turn in (with an extra bonus for foreigners who are clearly Al Qaeda members through and through) bring forth a young, dirty man in civilian dress.
At that very instant, the commanding officer says “You are an Enemy Prisoner of War, under full provision of the Geneva Convention”. The wind blows amid the silence, as the young man looks on, uncomprehending. A few seconds tick by.
“And now, I hereby invoke the authority of George W Bush and declare that you are an Enemy Combatant, under no such provision and subject to indefinite detention and even execution without trial”.
Come now, Brutus. You surely cannot be so utterly deluded as to consider this scenario as being consistent with those US Army Regulations?
Your optimism in this case, while admirable, is sadly misguided…