# Guantanamo- Detainees do have GC Rights after all **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 11, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056 "2006-07-11T16:58:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/21 "2006-07-11T18:49:29Z")
There could be (and hopefully to me \*will \* be) some very interesting things rising out of this. Who is responsible for enforcement of the codes contained in the GC? Is it some body that we’ll easily defy and ignore? And is the SC’s decision retroactive? I’m especially curious about the third convention and article 17: “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/22 "2006-07-11T19:03:29Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Calling: > > **Zigaretten** > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3685106&postcount=87](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3685106&postcount=87) > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3690697&postcount=92](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3690697&postcount=92) > > **Monty** > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3697087&postcount=109](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3697087&postcount=109) > > **DrDeth** > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3701541&postcount=115](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3701541&postcount=115) > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3702486&postcount=118](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3702486&postcount=118) > > and **Minty Green** and many others in the posts lost in the Winter of our Missed Contect. Well, the GC clearly applies to everyone in the world since there is a section that covers every situation. Those posters, along with me, have been asserting that the GC for the treatment of POWs does not apply to the Gitmo detianees. Big difference. Neither the SCOTUS nor the Bush adminisration has stated that they are POWs. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/23 "2006-07-11T19:28:47Z")
I don’t see this affecting the day-to-day life of Gitmo detainees at all. The United States has been following a policy of treating the detainees as if they were protected by the Geneva Convention long before ever accepting that the GC applied to them. So, treatment-wise, that won’t change–unless of course it’s a lie that Guantanomo Detainees were being voluntarily treated in accordance with the spirit of the GC. The United States government has not accepted these persons as POWs, which means that their status and their chance of being released isn’t going to changed anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/24 "2006-07-11T20:29:43Z")
I would not call lack of unsupervised access by the Red Cross as treating Gitmo detainees as being treated as if they had Geneva convention rights. I also think that being made ‘uncomfortable’ using methods that would be recognised as torture - such as sleep deprivation, intimidation by dogs, water boarding, and stress positions as being treated as under the rights of GC, so my take is that they have never been treated as having GC rights, from legal access, to humanitarian access, and such conditions are superb for allowing abuse to take place unseen. I do also believe that force feeing is not allowed under GC, detention of children is probably not allowed either, or detention of non-combatants - as witnessed by the release of several inmates years after they were kidnapped and effectively ransomed to the US. The detainnees have not been allowed access to a Imam for three years, yet freedom of religion is a right under GC. This isn’t going to change anytime soon, the stain on the US record will just continue to gow, and corrode the values of those operating this camp, and all those involved, and some of these will undoubtedly get involved in US politics, because military service is always welcomed by the US voter. This if course does not begin to cover the odious practice of rendition, and god alone know what is happening to those subject to it, from abduction, undoubtedly torure ( why detain someone in secret unless you want to avoid scrutiny, and why would any government want to avoid scrutiny?) ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/25 "2006-07-11T21:04:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, the GC clearly applies to everyone in the world since there is a section that covers every situation. Those posters, along with me, have been asserting that the GC for the treatment of POWs does not apply to the Gitmo detianees. Big difference. Neither the SCOTUS nor the Bush adminisration has stated that they are POWs. Right, but what all of you (Bush administration included) have failed to do, is explain why “Detained Enemy Combatant” is different from “Prisoner of War”, except in name. The lack of a uniform and allegiance to an ideal (instead of a country) really isn’t a satisfactory answer, it’s a distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Linty\_Fresh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Linty\_Fresh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linty_Fresh)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/26 "2006-07-11T21:04:39Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Orwell’s dystopian vision of a totalitarian society with absolute thought control has not come to pass in the US, and is unlikely ever to. However, he also had a few words to say about the use of language, both in **1984** and elsewhere, and this Snow job fits exactly what Orwell was talking about. So “Orwellian” is (IMHO) exactly the right word. Perhaps I take the word Orwellian a bit more literally, but in my mind, telling the lie that this is no more Orwellian than when I tell Aunt Gladys that I love the red plaid scarf she knitted for me and plan to wear it every day this winter, even though in reality I wouldn’t use it to frighten bears away from my campsite. Orwellian has the connotation of using words specifically to cloud your purpose or of blind unthinking obediance by the populace. For instance, if Tony Snow says that in adherence with the GC, Gitmo would be the home of the new Bureau Of Reconciliation, which has its offices behind the special barbed wire fence and just _happens_ to be run by the CIA’s chief of operations and staffed by ex-Khmer Rouge squad leaders, that would be Orwellian. If Tony Snow states that this does not constitute a reversal of policy, and millions of Americans spontaneously congregate in parks across the country in perfect military formations while nodding in unison and chanting “Yes. This does not constitute a reversal of policy.” _that’s_ Orwellian. When Tony Snow states that this does not constitute a reversal of policy, and everyone with a three digit IQ to the left of Michael Savage laughs in his face and posts snide remarks about his mother drinking while pregnant, _that’s_ just talking out his ass. There’s Orwell, and then there’s just lying about shit. This is just lying about shit. That said, I’m really happy at this turn of events. Bush’s refusal to treat the Gitmo detainees according to the Geneva Convention really squicked me out. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/27 "2006-07-11T21:06:31Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > I would not call lack of unsupervised access by the Red Cross as treating Gitmo detainees as being treated as if they had Geneva convention rights. > > I also think that being made ‘uncomfortable’ using methods that would be recognised as torture - such as sleep deprivation, intimidation by dogs, water boarding, and stress positions as being treated as under the rights of GC, so my take is that they have never been treated as having GC rights, from legal access, to humanitarian access, and such conditions are superb for allowing abuse to take place unseen. > > Etc. Beat me to it. The “consistency” propaganda is bullshit. We’ll have to see if claims to adherence are also bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/28 "2006-07-11T21:11:15Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Right, but what all of you (Bush administration included) have failed to do, is explain why “Detained Enemy Combatant” is different from “Prisoner of War”, except in name. The lack of a uniform and allegiance to an ideal (instead of a country) really isn’t a satisfactory answer, it’s a distinction without a difference. Well, lack of affiliation with a recognized military entity is the difference, but you’re right to question the value of such a distinction except to provide a convenient means for The Decider et al. to circumvent any and all international conventions as they see fit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/29 "2006-07-11T21:15:57Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Right, but what all of you (Bush administration included) have failed to do, is explain why “Detained Enemy Combatant” is different from “Prisoner of War”, except in name. Bullshit. You just having been paying attention. I’ve explained it at least half-a-dozen times myself, and the others have as well. The most important disctinction is that a POW cannot be interrogated. > [@](#): > > The lack of a uniform and allegiance to an ideal (instead of a country) really isn’t a satisfactory answer, it’s a distinction without a difference. Tell that to the folks who actually wrote the GC because that what it fucking says. I’ll tell you what, though-- why don’t you tell us when someone doesn’t qualify for POW status. If you answer “never”, then you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/30 "2006-07-11T21:31:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Bullshit. You just having been paying attention. I’ve explained it at least half-a-dozen times myself, and the others have as well. The most important disctinction is that a POW cannot be interrogated. Right. So they’re specifically _not_ being called POW’s for the administration’s convenience. > [@](#): > > Tell that to the folks who actually wrote the GC because that what it fucking says. I’ll tell you what, though-- why don’t you tell us when someone doesn’t qualify for POW status. If you answer “never”, then you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Were the people captured engaged in hostile activity against US forces during armed conflict? Then they’re POW’s. You can give it any name you want to justify whatever breaches against the GC you want; that’s the only question it comes down to. And if the answer is no, then you need to provide evidence that they’re being held for crimes against the U.S. They don’t prove their innocence; we prove their guilt. If neither condition applies…and I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp…we have no reason to detain them, and we need to fucking let them go. Some bounty hunter rounding up a bunch of guys who match vague descriptions is not proof. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/31 "2006-07-11T21:45:06Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Right. So they’re specifically _not_ being called POW’s for the administration’s convenience. You could say that, but it’s still a fact that if we’re talking about members of al Qaeda, they are not POWs. I don’t think that much of a case could be made for not treating members of the Taliban as POWs, but that’s a different story. > [@](#): > > Were the people captured engaged in hostile activity against US forces during armed conflict? Then they’re POW’s. You can give it any name you want to justify whatever breaches against the GC you want; that’s the only question it comes down to. And if the answer is no, then you need to provide evidence that they’re being held for crimes against the U.S. They don’t prove their innocence; we prove their guilt. If neither condition applies…and I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp…we have no reason to detain them, and we need to fucking let them go. Some bounty hunter rounding up a bunch of guys who match vague descriptions is not proof. IOW, you don’t kow what you’re talking about. If everyone captured by another country is POW, then why do we even need a section of the GC to define what they are? Members of al Qaeda simply do not meet the req’ts of the [GC to be bcalled POWs.](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4) Here’s a hint for you: hijacking an airliner and flying it into a builiding in order to kill civilians is not considered “respect[ing] the laws and customs of war.” ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/32 "2006-07-11T21:48:10Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Well, lack of affiliation with a recognized military entity is the difference, but you’re right to question the value of such a distinction except to provide a convenient means for The Decider et al. to circumvent any and all international conventions as they see fit. Yes and no. Article four states: > [@](#): > > (Article 4) “Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy” > > ``` > * "Members of the armed forces" > * "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" > * "Persons who accompany the armed forces" > * "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft" > * **"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms"** > > ``` It isn’t necessary to be affilliated with the military; essentially, anyone who points a gun at a soldier of the United States can be taken as a prisoner of war. So yes, **John** , on preview, I actually _do_ know WTF I’m talking about, it’s just that a lot of people are trying really hard to ignore that little bolded part up there. Also: Are you really trying to make the case that everyone in GITMO is being detained for having something to do with flying the planes into the WTC? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/33 "2006-07-11T21:52:12Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Yes and no. Article four states: > It isn’t necessary to be affilliated with the military; essentially, anyone who points a gun at a soldier of the United States can be taken as a prisoner of war. So yes, **John** , on preview, I actually _do_ know WTF I’m talking about, it’s just that a lot of people are trying really hard to ignore that little bolded part up there. Also: Are you really trying to make the case that everyone in GITMO is being detained for having something to do with flying the planes into the WTC? Then why did you leave this part off: > [@](#): > > …provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. But I’ll tell what. Why don’t you open a GD thread: **Resolved: Captured al Qaeda members are POWs per the GC**. Let’s see how that debate goes. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/34 "2006-07-11T22:01:28Z")
Bottom line: This administration, and many posters here, want their cake and eat it too. They want to say we are at “War”. A war on terror. They claim that Congress authorized a “war” when they did not and they support the administrations other policies by saying we are at “war”. If we are at “war” with an entity, “Al Qaeda”, then anyone captured during that is a Prisoner of War. You cannot have your cake and eat it too John. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/35 "2006-07-11T22:03:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Then why did you leave this part off: Because I got it from Wikipedia, and that was the list as I C&P’d it. I wasn’t trying to leave anything out. Regardless; thus far we haven’t proven that any of these people have either a) taken up arms against U.S. Forces during armed combat, b) conspired in acts against the U.S. or c) Engaged in terrorist acts against the U.S. For the most part, they haven’t even been charged. Whose law are we going by, here? Theirs? Ours? International? Clear it up for me. > [@](#): > > But I’ll tell what. Why don’t you open a GD thread: **Resolved: Captured al Qaeda members are POWs per the GC**. Let’s see how that debate goes. No, I’ll tell _you_ what. Why don’t you walk away and go have a drink or something? I’ll even brave the 101 and buy. You’re obviously pissy today, and your mood is ruining your usually calm, well stated arguments. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/36 "2006-07-11T22:04:35Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Bottom line: This administration, and many posters here, want their cake and eat it too. They want to say we are at “War”. A war on terror. They claim that Congress authorized a “war” when they did not and they support the administrations other policies by saying we are at “war”. If we are at “war” with an entity, “Al Qaeda”, then anyone captured during that is a Prisoner of War. You cannot have your cake and eat it too John. No, not everyone captured during a war is a POW, in the sense defined by the GC. You also don’t know what the fuck you’re taking about. But if you think you do, why don’t you open the GD thread I suggest that \*\*Maureen \*\*open? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/37 "2006-07-11T22:17:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You could say that, but it’s still a fact that if we’re talking about members of al Qaeda What is your evidence that anyone at Gitmo is a member of _al Qaeda_? Not that it matters. “Enemy combatant” is a made-up, bullshit category which really only means anyone who wasn’t wearing a uniform when we kidnapped them. The government has yet to prove that single one of those people is anything but a civilian non-combatant, illegally imprisoned and tortured. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/38 "2006-07-11T22:18:46Z")
Are the “laws and customs of war” (I’m especially suspicious of “customs” as a meaningful standard) clearly ennumerated and described somewhere such that I could know with certainty, independent of The Decider and his cronies, that a Taliban militant is or is not a _bona fide_ POW? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/39 "2006-07-11T22:21:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, not everyone captured during a war is a POW, in the sense defined by the GC. You also don’t know what the fuck you’re taking about. But if you think you do, why don’t you open the GD thread I suggest that \*\*Maureen \*\*open? 1. These people weren’t captured during a war. The “War on Terror” is a catchphrase, not an actual war. 2. What is your evidence that any of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are enemy combatants as defined in the GC? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/40 "2006-07-11T22:22:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What is your evidence that anyone at Gitmo is a member of _al Qaeda_? Well, that’s a very good question. I’ve never agreed with the Administration’s prorcess of determining who was and who wasn’t a member of al Qaeda, but I think we can safely assume that ObL’s driver and bodyguard, Mr. Hamdam, is. He is, after all, the specific guy who triggered the recent SCOTUS case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056.md?page=3)