Indeed, thanks hawthorne.
I feel we are getting a little off topic here. The point is not whether they are PoW’s, although I cannot reasonably see how they’re not GC-wise, but that either they are PoW’s or they are foreign criminals. There is no such thing as anything else in international law.
Debating what “rights” these minors should have compared to their adult counterparts is absurd if they are all being denied their legal rights.
First of all- armed dudes, in a war zone who are not wearing uniforms- can & have been shot on the spot after a fast trial. Completley legally, under US & International law. We did it with the nazi commandoes that landed on the East Coast in WWII- and SCOTUS said that it was perfectly legal. (So note to CTB- you’re wrong) The Germans did it to members of the Resistance- and note we didn’t bring this up as a “war crime” at Nuremburg. There is no exception for age. Nor is there any “doubt”.
These dudes are foreign volunteers, serving in a terrorist org. Now- if they commited their crimes HERE- they’d have some rights. But they didn’t- they commited their crimes in a warzone (I know, we didn’t “declare war” per se, but in effect Conress did). The only “right” they have is for a “tribunal” to decide whether or not to shoot them, or some lesser punishment. Nor is there a specified time in which we have to do this.
It is true that some of our Commandoes & such sometimes don’t wear uniforms or even the “identifying mark” (which only has to be something like a flag or the like, not a full-fledged “uniform”). And you know what? Some of our OSS guys were shot- legaly- in WWII by the germans. It is not a crime to wear civvies- it is just that you have virtually no rights if you get caught. However, they weren’t shot for being “unlawful combatants”- they were in the US Military- they were shot for being spys & sabotuers. The Al Quada dudes we caught weren’t even in a military- they were just armed members of an illegal terrorist org. If one of our guys in the Special Forces was caught in civvies, behind enemy lines- then yes, he would expect- and likely get- “Camp X Ray” status- and likely worse. His only advantage is that he could be used as a bargaining chip- and we have something to bargain with- and the Al Quada do not.
Of course, also- we weren’t the one who “ripped them out of their country”- they came on their own (or were sent by their parents, which is the real crime here), to Afganistan, from other nations.
Sezyou- yes, we have a very good idea that we have some detainees under 16. BUT WE DON’T KNOW HOW OLD THEY ARE. Got that? So- we can’t release their ages. And, of course, like my little sarcastic dialog said- we aren’t just going to ask them & take their word for it. We are trying to find out. Until then, they are given special treatment.
Did you read the extract I quoted DrDeth?
Sound nice & simple- but rather it is simplistic not simple. I, for instance (and likely you) are neither “POWS” or “foreign criminals”. Nor is that poor stateless dude at the Paris Intl Ariport. But of course, what you mean is dudes that are detained are one or the other. Again, not true- the USA “detains” then usually deports thousands of illegal aliens every month- they are niether POWs or “foreign criminals”. And, you know those nazis we executed in WWII- the ones that snuck into the USA on a U-boat for purposes of spying & sabotage? They were neither, also- and very very dead- all perfectly legal- according to both SCOTUS and “International Law”.
The Al-Quada terrorists we caught are also neither. Now, I will admit, that if the legit & recognized government of Afganistan insisted we turn them over to them for trial- we might have to- or maybe not- I, unlike you, do not pretend to be an expert in International Law. But they have not done so. And, AFAIK, the nations of whom they are a citizen have not demanded their release, either. So- yep. There doesn’t seem to be anything under “International law” that does NOT allow us to “detain” them indefinately. Now, maybe we’ll hear from the Hague, or Geneva, and maybe those REAL experts in “International law” will decide we are holding these dudes illegally- but so far they haven’t.
But the real crime here:wally is that these “children” were brainwashed & armed by their parents and a Terrorist org. Not that we are holding them after the real crime was commited.:rolleyes:
Did you read my post? “Nor is there any “doubt””. No nation is claiming the detainees are members of their armed forces, and were in “uniform”. If I am wrong, please let me know what Nation is so claiming? From what I know, Afganistan is saying they definately were NOT members of the Afgan army.
Yes, I read your post, DrDeth. Note that the extract does not say “members of armed forces” (uniformed or not). It just says “persons”. As far as I can see, until a person is found by a “competent tribunal” not to belong to a group not protected by the Convention, they shall enjoy the protection of the Convention. Do you disagree with this interpretation?
You seem to be saying that their status would be found to lie outside the Convention. That may be, but it’s quite beside the point.
To be “in uniform” all you need is an insignia or to be identifiable as a combatant of a certain group.
Now there is no human rights groupsthat would say that the US is not holding the prisoners illegally and denying them their rights under the Geneva Convention. This is exactly the situation that the Geneva Convention is supposed to prevent.
Yes, I do. And, apparently, so do the “Geneva boys”, as so far, they aren’t making any protests that I know of. Unless, perhaps, you are a Geneva Inspector? ( There might have been an “inquiry”, but that is different than a “protest”)
Your extract (taken out of context by the way, but the context is so huge that we’d need every hamster in the world to post it) starts with the qualifying phrase “Should any doubt arise…”- and as yet, no doubt has “arisen” by anyone empowered to raise such a “doubt”. That does not include “hawthorne” by the way.
Like I said- if a nation did claim the detainees were members of it’s uniformed military- then there’d be "doubt"and a tribunal would have to make a decision. Or if the Geneva Inspectors also claimed “doubts”. But so far- no “doubts”.
You know dudes- there are Judicial bodies that enforce “International Law”. Armchair lawyers reading one small clause of the Geneva Accords are not one of them. Nor is the SDMB, or even (gasp- dare I say it? 
) Cecil himself. The UN- especially the UNSC, the Hague, and Geneva are some of them. “Amnesty International” is not one. Now, I really don’t give a rats ass that someone here can cite an out of context section of the Geneva Accords- because until one of those Int’l Judicial bodies or Orgs says that the USA is “violating International law by doing such-and-such”- we ain’t. International law is very confusing, even to an expert- which I am not- nor is anyone who has posted here (I do KNOW an “expert” in International Commercial law though, and what she tells me of it is enough for me to know there is nothing cut & dried that one out of context section can really be meaningful) And, even if & when they do- there are appeals, etc, not to mention possible Constitutional issues. However- if & when the Geneva Inspectors come down on us, and claim we are violating their Accords- then I wil sit up & take notice. But they aren’t.
DrDeth,
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the OP is asking whether or not we can get away with this legally. Obviously we can. International law cannot stop us because the administration has decided to ignore international law. A law is only as good as its enforcement, and who, honestly, has the power to take the US on? No one.
The question is not even whether we are meeting the minimum requirements of international law. We have claimed to be to light of democracy and freedom in the world. Just because others have done similar things or we have done similar things (and I still hold that we have done nothing like this before, even during WWII), does not mean that it is OK. We are better than this, and as an American who believes in the basic tenets of the American legal system, you should find it abhorrent.
Well, like I said- if anyone who had any authority to so so said that the USA was violating Int’l Law- I’d sit up and take notice. But they haven’t. Unless… you are a Geneva Inspector? I will admit that “International law cannot stop us…”- but they haven’t even TRIED.
The American Legal system OTOH, I know something about. And according to decisions handed down so far- what we have done is mostly legal. The parts that the Courts said were illegal have been changed.
But tell ya what, CTB. Go Google, and look up the case of the WWII German U-boat landed sabotuers. They were in the german military. They didn’t wear uniforms. We hung them, and with only a Military Tribunal- and SCOTUS said it was completely legal.
Now, some dudes here bring up the fact that “uniform” can be pretty loosely applied. Right- if you are in the Fredonian Defence forces (to make something up), and your “uniform” is limited to “mostly black, and with a Fredonian flag patch on the left shoulder”- you probably slide by. However, here is the big point- uniform or no- you gotta be a part of someones army- some “nation” has to claim you. So far, no “nation” is claiming the detainees at Camp X-Ray were part of their national forces- let alone they were “wearing the Fredonian flag on the left shoulder” or whatever. If they were part of a recognized national “military”- then why hasn’t anyone claimed them yet? They weren’t part of the regular Afgan army- the Afgan gov’t isn’t claiming them. And if they WERE “wearing a uniform”- what were they wearing, huh? What was the equivilant of the “Fredonian flag on the left shoulder”?
DrDeth,
I repeat that I am not arguing the legality of the action. To my mind, the OP is not looking for a legal analysis. As an American citizen (I assume) you are of course bound to the laws of this nation. On the other hand, as an American citizen, you are also directly responsible for determining through your elected representatives if the laws in place represent your nation as you like it to be represented. To me the current law is completely irrelevant. If it is allowed under the current laws, then those laws need to change. We are a very different nation than we were during WWII, and we are better than this. That’s it. That’s all I’m saying. The whole enemy combatant thing was and is abhorant to me before, and it is even more so now that I find juveniles there.
To the uniform question, I can at this point only make one observation. To invade a country that is basically living in the stone age and to declare that they are not worthy of POW status because they don’t all have pretty little uniforms is just friggin insane. And no governement is claiming them as their own because the government of Afghanistan as it was no longer exists. Do you honestly think it likely that the government put in place by the victors of the conflict there are really going to claim their former enemy as their own? Since we have a stated desire of assassination of Mullah Omar, do you think he’s going to come out of hiding to claim these folks, just to receive a bullet in the head. These laws you quote have been specifically written to deal with conflicts among industrially developed nations, and really have no bearing whatsoever on a conflict in one of the poorest, least developed countries on earth.
Reading through the “Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,” it appears that uniforms or other distinguishing marks are only required in one group:
However, in regards to regular armed forces it only states:
So it would seem that a “sign recognizable at a distance” is not a requirement for being a POW. Also, I noticed part 6 of the same article:
I’m wondering… Am I interpreting these right?
In any case… The declaration of these people as not being POWs does seem to be in violation of this convention, under Article 5, as there is most certainly doubt that they are or are not POWs, and there has been no tribunal conducted to determine that they are not. Instead, it’s pretty much gone the other way; They were assumed to not be POWs, and several were eventually released when it was decided that they were, the exact opposite of how it’s supposed to go.
Also, DrDeth:
Untrue. Article 4, section A 2, 3 (“Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.”), and 6 all cover combatants that are not “claimed” by a nation, or in some cases, don’t even belong to an organized force. Of those 3, only the first includes wearing a distinguishing sign as part of the requirements.
As for the WWII landings, I could only find references for 3 landings, 2 in June 1942, and 1 in November, 1944. The first one resulted in the trial (Which lasted “most of July”) and electrocution of 6 of the members in August, while the others were imprisoned. The second group was given a death sentance but then commuted after the war. However, one could arguably place the german sabateurs in with group “2” (“other militia and organized resistance”) in which case their lack of identifiable sign and failing to carry arms openly would nullify protection under the convention. Debatable, though, but it would make a good case for a tribunal to revoke POW protection. But in any case, they were treated as foreign criminals and given a trial, unlike those being held currently.
Feel free to draw parallels, however skew, to WW2 but since we are talking about legitimacy according to the Third Geneva Convention reagrding Prisoners of War it might be useful to note that it entered into force in 1950.
As for looking for a loophole whereby a party to the conflict can treat captives however it damned well pleased, it is abundantly clear that the GC tries its level best to define as many groups as possible in order that nobody ever disappears into a black hole of illegitimacy like the alleged foreign criminals at camp X-ray.
Afganistan had an army. They wore uniforms. Those who surrendered were (breifly, they were released quickly) treated as POWs. Thus, the dudes at Camp X-Ray are not part of the Afgan army- and no one in authority ever claimed they were.
Phoenix- the dudes at Camp X-Ray are not/were not members of the Afgan army. They failed a, b, c & d. Note especially “respect the the laws & customs of war”. So- Phoenix- who exactly is having these “doubts”? The USA? Nope. The Afgani Gov’t? Nope. The Geneva Inspectors? Not so far. UNSC? The Hague? Still nothing from those sources. It is not enough that YOU have these “doubts”- some recognized body must have “doubts”. Now, I really don’t know enough about Int’l law to refute your points- but that’s OK, as you guys don’t know enough Int’l Law to MAKE these points in the first place.
And note I put “Nation” in “”, as the Geneva accords are pretty reasonable as to what includes a “nation”. If you have a Govenrment, a populace, and an org army- then you’re a “nation” or “enity”. Thus, the PLO, even though it isn’t recognized as being a real nation yet- would qualify. So would the Iraqi Kurds. But criminal orgs don’t qulaify. members of the Mafia- no matter how well organized- are NOT POW’s when captuered. Nor are the “Crips” and “Bloods”- even though you can argue that they were “uniforms” of a sort
The point is- you dudes think you can read a few sections of the Geneva accords, and all of a sudden- you are experts in Intl’ Law. Whereas the REAL experts, the Geneva Inspectors, have made no such claims. Like I said before- quote all the Int’l Law you want- and make all the opinions you want- but they don’t mean squat. Int’l Law is not ruled on by dudes on a MB. I know you are worng- and the reason I know you are wrong is becuase the REAL experts say you are. IF the Geneva Inspectors come in, and make a complaint against the USA as those terrorists need to be treated as POWs- then I’ll pay attention. But they haven’t, and they are not likely to.
Sentient- I mentioned the WWII incident as claims were made that these sorta things didn’t even occur in WWII. We don’t need to go on a long hi jack about them. A Point was made- I refuted it.
Per Dr Dreth’s argument I guess we can all sleep easy because apparently no official body is taking action concerning the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
I guess he has a point. What idiots would want to question the authorities and thier agnedas/competence/integrity?
You can argue the legal technicalities until you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t change the fact that prisoners are being taken arbitrarily and seemingly held for as long as is desired. This is in serious conflict with the American principles of justice. I don’t care what you call these guys and what legal loop-holes you exploit or what legislation special interests push through, this crap reeks.
Can anyone come up with an argument that justifies the essential nature of what’s going on here? Or are we just going to obfuscate the issue with legal complexities?
If it is so wrong, so illegal, and so bad- why haven’t the Geneva Inspectors made offical complaints? Why aren’t we in The Hague facing the World Court? Why hasn’t the UNSC done anything? Why doesn’t SCOTUS have a problem with it?
Sure- you don’t like it. And- that’s your right. Don’t vote for Bush next election. Maybe it is “immoral” or “wrong”- as those are a matter of individual choice & opinion. Personally- I am not all that happy about the situation, either- if they are criminals, let’s give them a trial by Tribunal, and then sentence them.
However- don’t natter on about it being “illegal” or “against Int’l Law” as it isn’t. When you so blithely say things like that- then I will argue with you. If you simply say it is “wrong”- that’s another kettle of fish altogther.
But even if I agree with you dudes it is “immoral” or “wrong”- I am not going to delude myself that it is also “illegal” or “against Int’l law”.
And I’ll point out again that several have been released when it was discovered that they were legal combatants, and therefor entitled to the rights of POWs. Denying them POW rights until it was determined that they were POWs is against Article 5 of the convention. That doesn’t cast any doubt at all?
And no, you didn’t exactly make your WWII point, there. Even if the convention was in force at the time, they could be argued to be part of group 2, and without identifying marks or carrying weapons openly, could be tried as foreign criminals instead of treated as POWs. They were given trials, and had the rights any suspect has under the law. The people held currently are not even being given that. Instead, they’re being inprisoned for an indefinite period of time and denied legal rights.
And finally, there have been numerous human rights groups speaking out against this action, including (IIRC) the International Red Cross, which is mentioned several times by name in the convention.
That the world isn’t in an uproar about it is rather irrelevant. The US has historically been able to get away with quite a lot without major complaints being leveled against it.