Guantanamo- Detainees do have GC Rights after all

What I don’t get is why the Administration couldn’t have just aimed for the side of caution and granted these folks the rights of POWs from the get-go.

Why couldn’t they have said, “Look. We got these guys who don’t fit POW status, but we’re going to treat them as such until we can figure out what we’re going to do with them.” How much face would the Administration have lost if they had done this?

I’m not asking a rhetorical question. I’m hoping someone can help me understand this situation, because I don’t get it.

except that the administration has made it clear that when they are talking about T.W.a.T, they are indeed invoking ‘war’ in the military sense. hence the multiple references to “we’re at war” especially when attempting to justify the suspension of civil rights of citizens of the US (Padillo?), as well as the rational for not having to resort to pesky things like judicial oversite of wiretapping etc.

Uhm, yes. AUMF. Emphasis added:

Maybe. But they can also be turned over to the coutnry where they are citizens and where they can be tried for conspiracy, or some such charge. That has, in fact, happened to some of the detainees.

For the simple reason that you cannot intorrogate POWs. You can’t do it in a rough fashion like Bush wanted and you can’t do it in a nice fashion like you or I might want them to do. You cannot offer preferential treatment to those who choose to rat on their fellow terrorists*-- all you can do is ask for name, rank and serial number. POWs are treated in a very specific way, and for good reason. We don’t want them to be pressured to commit treason, for one thing, by aiding and abetting the enemy. But we do what to be able to pressure someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed to tell us about plans of future attacks. Now, we can argue about what tactics can be used to “pressure” him, but I want him interrogated. And I want al Qaeda operatives and suspected operatives to be incentivzed to rat out their co-conspirators just like we’d do with someone in the Mafia.

*we have to, for the sake of argument, agree that they are potentially terrorists at least.

The link works fine in the post where I fixed it. It’s a BBC article. You’re probably thinking of Amnesty International or some other group.

Okay. For the sake of argument: Considering the large number of detainees rounded up solely for the bounty they brought, I can’t see that they’re any more “potentially” terrorists than any other Afghani/Pakistani citizen. And I’m not willing to accept that all Afghanis and Pakistanis are potential terrorists any more than I’m willing to accept that all 15 year old boys in Oakland are potential gang members. It automatically shifts our perceptions to “guilty until proven innocent.”

That, coupled with the story out of the Guardian that I posted last week leads me to believe that the administration has no interest whatever humane treatment of prisoners, or “doing this thing right” because it’s never been done before and golly gee, we just don’t know how. I don’t buy that. The British have been dealing with terrorism and the IRA for how long, now? We couldn’t just ask how they dealt with potential terrorists? They are our last (pretty much) ally in this thing. No. It was never about that. I agree with your previous statement: It’s because you can’t interrogate POW’s. And we wanted to interrogate us some terrorists. My word, yes. Even if we had no proof they had any ties to al Qaida or the Taliban or any other terrorist cell.

Ah, ok. I wasn’t aware of that, so I apologse for doubting you. I’ll amend my statement to say that a member of any organisation other than al Quaeda (or who have taken such people under their protection) can’t be held or charged simply for being a member of that organisation.

I’m rather startled by this AUMF, though. I see it was passed soon after (and cites) 9/11, so I suppose that explains why the President has been given the power to detain people even if they are innocent of any crime.

And I don’t dispute that; but in those countries, too, unless they have a law criminalising membership of a terroristic organisation, can’t simply hold or charge them for being members. As you say, they’d need to have an actual charge, such as conspiracy.

Who isn’t? What an utterly meaningless statement. How would anyone be able to prove he’s not a “potential terrorist?” You keep putting the cart before the horse. We can’t treat people like criminals until we prove it first. I don’t give a shit if poor little Shrub doesn’t get to torture and interrogate “potential terrorists.” Fuck him. If he wants to call them criminals, let him prove it. If he wants to call them enemies of war, then he has to follow the GC regs for POWs. What he’s trying to get away with now is just bullshit anyway you slice it.

Regarding the OP: No shit. Is there anyone besides the most slavish Bushites who had any doubt? Of course not.

But does it matter? You know how much FUN you can have with four free years of torture!

-Joe

He could kill himself, no potential after that.
However, in real life it seems that clearing oneself at Gitmo is not impossible. There are 120 prisoners that have been cleared for release. Trouble is, the State department can’t figure out how to make them go away:

Interesting thought. Maybe we will get a signing statement.

Possible

Gee, thanks for quoting only the footnote in my post. :rolleyes: Look, when you pick up a suspect he is a suspect, whether you like it or not. I never once said they had to prove they weren’t terrorists, so stop putting words in my mouth.

If anyone wants to debate this further, he can open a GD thread. My only real interest in this thread was to correct error that I corrected in my first post. I have no interest in responding to every foaming-at-the-mouth nut who comes along and makes unsupported claims about what the GC does or does not say about POWs. No court in the US has ruled that these guys are POWs, and not even the Democratic leaders in Congress are saying that they are.

You rang? I don’t understand your point. :confused:

Well John, since you also said I don’t know what the fuck I am talking about, I guess I pissed you off too. However, since the Supreme Court tends to agree with me, then I will be happy with that. I don’t know if you are one of the posters that consistently refer to this as a “war on terror” and therefore we are in a state of war as a nation against these groups. But all I know is that at least, finally, this society is starting to get some sense back and the Supreme Court agrees with my point of view.

Very true Martin, but in many situations, the Republican party has repeated constantly that they are justified in doing many things that erode civil liberties because we are at war. I don’t know if you are one of the people who say this, but I do know that the doublespeak is starting to come and bite these conservative war-mongers in the ass.

Parsing out the POW bits from the GC:

ARTICLE 4

The insurgents do not appear to qualify under (1) through (5).

What about (6)? No.

B(1)? No.

B(2)? No, since they don’t qualify under any of the previous classes.

So the insurgents at Guantanimo do not appear to qualfy as POWs under the GC. Have the insurgents, including Al Queda, signed the GC? Is the GC binding when it has been signed by only one side?

these bits apply to civilians, but are there only POWs and Civilians?

Article III of the above states that:

The insurgents certainly do not qualify as civilians.

Moreover:

Article V indicates that:

One might argue that the third paragraph covers the insurgents, but the modifying bit: … They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. Blurs things up a bit.

Have the rules changed since WWII? All a POW has to reveal is name, rank and serial no. In WWII you could be ** asked** any question your captor wanted to ask.

We got a lot of briefings on the danger of getting chatty. A very common technique that we were warned about was the “good cop,” “bad cop” routine. When first picked up you would be cursed, yelled at, left cold, hungry and thirsty. Then a nice office would come in, appologize offering the excuse that the cabbage heads who had picked you up were uncouth peasants who didn’t know anything. You would be offered a cigararette, coffee, water. The the nice man would just start asking you questions about your outfit. By the time he came he very likely already knew your group and squadron. He would mention specific people like “How is Col. XYZ these days?” The object being to show you that he knew so much about your group that anything you said would be old hat. If you fell for the bait and chatted he might just learn a new fact. It was impressed upon us that they weren’t looking for big revelations. Just bits and pieces that they could add to their store of intelligence.

I would like a cite that POW’s can’t be questioned because it certainly didn’t used to be that way.

But that is the very point. Hamdam was actually captured on the filed of battle (unlike many others who were rounded up later in Africa, Europe and afghanistan after the battle was over- sold to the US by warlords to settle scores.

Let us look at Hamdam. Let us admit he was a bodyguard for ObL. Let’s admit he was a driver for him. Let’s admit he was an affiliate of Al Qaeda. Does that make him a war criminal or enemy combatant. Did we take Hitler’s drivers and bodyguards to Nuremburg? Did we hold them as enemy combatants?

IIRC the only high value Al Qaeda suspect (I forget his name) captured following the war in Afghanistan was kept out of Gyuantanamo and tortured properly elesewhere rather than given torture lite at Gitmo.

Given the number of Al Qaeda symathisers and activisists now currently at loose in the world because of the Iraq war and the aftermath of the Agfhanistan war including Gitmo and extraordinary rendition and torture and Abu Ghraib and US soldiers raping children and killing their family, and US soldiers killing a whole village beacause one of their brother soldiers was killed in an ambush, releasing a mere 500 people in Guantanamo who have some affiliation with Al Qaeda would be a mere drop in the ocean.

The largest recruiting agent for Al Qaeda has been the US Government. There was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the illegal invasion; there sure is now. In 2001 Al Qaeda was able to find 19 mass murderers to crash airplanes into buildings. I suspect that there are many more now willing to do that than there were back then. 13% of British Muslims believe that the people who bombed London last year are martyrs. That certainly would not have been their view before the demonization of the Islamic world by Bush, Blair and others.

Guantanamo is a major net deficit in any War on Terror- it actually increases the power of the terrorists. But the US Government will find it difficult to re-spin its rhetoric about the worst of the worst.

As an example of the effect of releases, all British (save David Hicks who is now British as well as Australian) detainees, including one classified as the first for a military tribunal have now been living freely in the UK for over a year with no reports whatsoever of al Qaeda or terrorist involvement.

The only thing that keeps Gitmo going now is the Bush Admin’s ainability to close it because of the corner they have backed there way into.

If anyone is supporting Al Qaeda by their actions, it is the Bush Administration.

In amplification of my above point, the Nazi party were seen in the same light as Al Qaeda, and certainly the SS were. Why were all those thousands of people not rounded up and charged as illegal combattants.

Oh, I remember, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman et al were not neo-cons but understood that there are limits to warfare and retribution. They chose to charge and sentence the real perpertrators and to engage in denazification which allowed a pariah state to reach competence and peace in less than a generation, whereas Bush is engaged in a process that will ensure festering sores of Islamic vilence for generations to come. People will be shouting ‘Remember Guantanamo’ to our children as they creep beneath western defences and re-visit the horror of 9/11.

*Pentagon breaks with Bush on detentions

· Geneva convention covers Guantánamo detainees
· Supreme court ruling prompts policy switch

The Bush administration was facing the collapse of its detention regime in the war on terror yesterday after the Pentagon said for the first time that prisoners at Guantánamo and elsewhere in US military custody around the world would be granted the protections of the Geneva convention.

In a memo released yesterday, the Pentagon’s second in command, Gordon England, broke with the Bush administration’s insistence of the past five years that the rules of war do not apply to the fight against al-Qaida.

“I request that you promptly review all relevant directives, regulations, policies, practices and procedures” to bring them in line with protections under article three of the Geneva convention, Mr England wrote. Article three outlaws torture and humiliating and degrading treatment, and says prisoners are entitled to a hearing by a regularly constituted court.
*