# Guantanamo: why are only US citizens allowed civilian legal representation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418 "2003-07-05T18:32:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![BeatenMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ab097/32.png) [@BeatenMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeatenMan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/101 "2003-07-12T19:18:00Z")
Can anyone tell me of a war and yes this is a war a on terrorism when pow’s were given a trial? POW’s are held UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER. Al-Qaeda has declared war on the USA and Al-Qaeda’s soldiers will be released when Al-Qaeda surrenders or all their members are killed. They can do the same to our soldiers. The problem is they haven’t captured any US soldiers to hold. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/102 "2003-07-12T20:05:00Z")
Um **BeatenMan** , did you miss the part about the USA not recognising them as POWs? And therfore not affording the protections of the Geneva Convention? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/103 "2003-07-12T20:14:21Z")
To further expand on what I said: The convention among civilised nations is that soldiers fighting in a war are committing no crime and prisoners can only be held for the purpose of keeping them from fighting. The Geneva Convention, of which the USA is a signatory, states that POWs cannot be interrogated and have certain rights as to their treatment. But the position of the USA is that these prisoners are not legal combatants in a war and so they are denied the protections of the Geneva Convention. They are being interrogated and denied other rights they would have as POWs. If they are not POWs then they can only be accuse of criminal acts which makes them accused criminals and entitled to a fair and speedy trial with all due process. The “illegal combatant” thing is pure bullshit invented to circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the most basic tenets of common decency. ---
**Author:** ![BeatenMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ab097/32.png) [@BeatenMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeatenMan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/104 "2003-07-12T20:16:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Um **BeatenMan** , did you miss the part about the USA not recognising them as POWs? And therfore not affording the protections of the Geneva Convention? \*\* Yes, I did miss that part. Would you be so nice as to show me the post or link that states this. I would be interested in knowing why they aren’t concidered POW’s. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/105 "2003-07-12T21:43:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, I did miss that part. Would you be so nice as to show me the post or link that states this. I would be interested in knowing why they aren’t concidered POW’s. OK, that’s a pretty big part to miss. Well you can find stories on pretty much any news site to go into this, here are some from the BBC to start with :- [here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1784700.stm) [and here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1787511.stm) [or even on Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44266,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/106 "2003-07-13T02:11:50Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by sailor_ > The Geneva Convention……………….states that POWs cannot be interrogated……… Not true. > [@](#): > > “Article 17 provides that POWs are obliged to give only their name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. Failure to provide this information subjects POWs to “restriction” of their privileges. However, **nothing in the Third Geneva Convention precludes interrogation on other matters** ; the Convention only relieves POWs of the duty to respond…….” > > _Human Rights Watch_ > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by sailor_ > They are being interrogated and denied other rights they would have as POWs. OK………interrogation isn’t a violation of their rights, so what “other rights” are they being denied? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by sailor_ > The “illegal combatant” thing is pure bullshit invented to circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the most basic tenets of common decency. You may be right, but if so, it wasn’t invented by this administration………… > [@](#): > > By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations7 and also between those who are lawful and **unlawful combatants**. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. **Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful**. > > _Ex Parte Quirin, 1942_ ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/107 "2003-07-13T10:51:26Z")
> [@](#): > > [ARTICLE 5 of the Geneva Convention](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm#art5). > Every prisoner of war is bound to give, if he is questioned on the subject, his true name and rank, or else his regimental number. If he infringes this rule, he is liable to have the advantages given to prisoners of his class curtailed. > > \*\*No coercion may be used on prisoners to secure information = to the condition of their army or country. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind whatever. \*\* > > If, because of his physical or mental condition, a prisoner is unable to identify himself, he shall be turned over to the medical corps. The USA is, clearly, not abiding by that rule and it has justified it on the grounds that it does not recognise the prisoners as POW subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. \>\> interrogation isn’t a violation of their rights, so what “other rights” are they being denied? If they are POW interrogation _is_ a violation of their rights. If they are _not_ POWs and are being held on account of being accused of criminal acts then they are being denide the right to a speedy and fair trial to determine their guilt or inocence. As has been said many times, these people are in legal limbo. The government has said they are _not_ POWs so then the only reason to hold them is oc criminal charges. They should be given a prompt and fair trial and not the abuse they are getting. The conditions under which they are being held is inhumane and unacceptable. Not to mention those which have been handed over to Egypt and other friendly countries where the US knew they would be tortured. The whole thing is shameful and should stop. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/108 "2003-07-13T13:31:35Z")
> [@](#): > > ARTICLE 6. > All effects and objects of personal use except arms, horses, military equipment and military papers shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, as well as metal helmets and gas masks. > > Money in the possession of prisoners may not be taken away from them except by order of an officer and after the amount is determined. A receipt shall be given. Money thus taken away shall be entered to the amount of each prisoner. > > Identification documents, insignia of rank, decorations and objects of value may not be taken from prisoners. > > ARTICLE 8. > Belligerents axe bound mutually to notify each other of their capture of prisoners within the shortest period possible, through the intermediary of the information bureaus, such as are organized according to Article 77. They are likewise bound to inform each other of the official addresses to which the correspondence of their families may be sent to prisoners of war. > > As soon as possible, every prisoner must be enabled to correspond with his family himself, under the conditions provided in Articles 36 et seq. > > As regards prisoners captured at sea, the provisions of the present article shall be observed as soon as possible after arrival at port. > > ARTICLE 9. > Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, or other place, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits. They may also be interned in enclosed camps; they may not be confined or imprisoned except as an indispensable measure of safety or sanitation, and only while the circumtances which necessitate the measure continue to exist. > > Prisoners captured in unhealthful regions or where the climate is injurious for persons coming from temperate regions, shall be transported, as soon as possible, to a more favorable climate. > > Belligerents shall, so far as possible, avoid assembling in a single camp prisoners of different races or nationalities. > > No prisoner may, at any time, be sent into a region where he might be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor used to give protection from bombardment to certain points or certain regions by his presence. > > CHAPTER 1. Installation of Camps. > ARTICLE 10. > Prisoners of war shall be lodged in buildings or in barracks affording all possible guarantees of hygiene and healthfulness. > > The quarters must be fully protected from. dampness, sufficiently heated and lighted. All precautions must be taken against danger of fire. > > With regard to dormitories the total surface, minimum cubic amount of air, arrangement and material of bedding-the conditions shall be the same as for the troops at base camps of the detaining Power. All these articles are not being respected and it is probably true with others. I have no doubt in my mind that these prisoners are being subjected to treatment and conditions which are inhumane and unacceptable in a civilised nation for any human being whether POW or common criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/109 "2003-07-13T16:34:19Z")
sailor: Since that article applies to POWs and the detainees at GITMO aren’t POWs, it’s pretty irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/110 "2003-07-13T17:34:32Z")
Monty my response [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3697314#post3697314). ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/111 "2003-07-13T18:46:36Z")
What I don’t get: why is it “OK” for British and American special forces to dress up in native costume to blend in, yet it isn’t for the Afghans at Guantanimo? ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/112 "2003-07-14T01:07:40Z")
Sailor, you’re killing yourself. First, allow me to update to the 1949 Geneva Convention… > [@](#): > > Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. > > …….blah blah blah about ID cards……………… > > 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 any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. > > ………………….blah blah physical/mental condition…………… > > The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. Coerce…………”to compel to an act or choice………to bring about by force or threat…….” Interrogate………”to question formally and systematically” There is nothing, let me repeat NOTHING, in your cite, or in the Geneva Convention that says that the US can not interrogate POWs. They can’t use torture, they can’t use threats or insults and they can’t punish POWs who refuse to answer. But they can interrogate til the cows come home. A good thing too, seeing as how we’ve interrogated POWs in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq and Yugoslavia. **Article 6** : I’m confident that we got an officer to order the removal of their money and they didn’t have any “insignia of rank.” I have no idea why you’ve even mentioned this Article. Seriously. **Article 8** : As soon as we find Osama we’ll tell him we’re holding some of his boys, OK? In the mean time you can hardly argue that we are in violation. As for letters, the detainees **have** been allowed to write home. If it wasn’t fast enough for you, then maybe you should talk to the Convention people about being a little more specific. **Articles 9 and 10** : Since your “charges” are pretty vague, and since its pretty obvious that Camp Delta meets most of the criteria in these Articles, I’ll assume you are objecting to the part about “………confined or imprisoned………” and to the absence of “dormitories.” Keep in mind that not all of the “POWs” from Afghanistan are at Camp Delta. Most are being held at more conventional camps. Camp Delta is only for persons who present special security risks because they are suspected of committing war crimes. Your own site says they can’t be “……confined or imprisoned **except** as an indispensable measure of safety ………” Here is what _Human Rights Watch_ has to say: > [@](#): > > “In light of the two prisoner uprisings in Afghanistan, we do not doubt that at least some of the Guantanamo detainees might well be highly dangerous. Nothing in the Geneva Conventions precludes appropriate security precautions.” Now, allow me to turn the tables a little. Assume these detainees are POWs. > [@](#): > > Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces. _Article 39_ If they don’t, then they are subject to: > [@](#): > > Confinement. > > _Article 89_ ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/113 "2003-07-14T01:14:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by +MDI \* > What I don’t get: why is it “OK” for British and American special forces to dress up in native costume to blend in, yet it isn’t for the Afghans at Guantanimo? **+MDI** , I actually discussed that point on page 2, about 3/4 of the way down. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/114 "2003-07-14T06:11:01Z")
zigaretten, The USA _is_ using coercion in their interrogations, _is not_ allowing prisoners to communicate directly with their families, and _is_ mistreating them in several other ways. Again, the USA does not recognise them the status of POWs but I am just saying I believe the way these prisoners are being held and treated does not meet the most basic standards of human rights and human decency. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/115 "2003-07-14T16:39:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*The Geneva Convention, of which the USA is a signatory, states that POWs cannot be interrogated and have certain rights as to their treatment. > > But the position of the USA is that these prisoners are not legal combatants in a war and so they are denied the protections of the Geneva Convention. They are being interrogated and denied other rights they would have as POWs. > > If they are not POWs then they can only be accuse of criminal acts which makes them accused criminals and entitled to a fair and speedy trial with all due process. > > \*\* It is amazing. You guys have been shown to be wrong on nearly every single point, but you don’t give up. Here is another point- the USA has NOT denied the Internees the “protections of the geneva Convention”- the ICRC in it’s role as Inspectors under the Geneva Convention has been given full access to the “internees”. And, since the USA has not had a “tribunal” to determine their status AS POW’s, we are giving them all the full rights as POW’s until then. Since we discussed this before, complete with links to the ICRC site, you know you are wrong when you say this. The only complaint the ICRC has recently aired is that the USA has been dragging it’s feet on a tribunal to determine POW status- not that the "internees’ are being denied any of their rights under the GC. They have a FT team of Inspectors there, and have been allowed full access. +MDI- And, in some case, where “our guys” are infiltrating behind enemy lines, and not wearing uniforms- they have been caught & shot as spies. Happened in WWII. You do this, and you take a risk of being caught & executed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/116 "2003-07-14T16:48:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*zigaretten, The USA _is_ using coercion in their interrogations, _is not_ allowing prisoners to communicate directly with their families, and _is_ mistreating them in several other ways. > > Again, the USA does not recognise them the status of POWs but I am just saying I believe the way these prisoners are being held and treated does not meet the most basic standards of human rights and human decency. \*\* However, the ICRC does not agree with you. So, since they are the experts in theses issues, looks like you are wrong again. The Internees do not have to be allowed “_direct_ communication” with their families. The ICRC takes & delivers “Red Cross Messages” to & fro, and has done so for many thousands of such. Again, right there on the ICRC webpage. Wrong _again_ . ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/117 "2003-07-14T20:04:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > It is amazing. You guys have been shown to be wrong on nearly every single point, but you don’t give up. Here is another point- the USA has NOT denied the Internees the “protections of the geneva Convention”- the ICRC in it’s role as Inspectors under the Geneva Convention has been given full access to the “internees”. And, since the USA has not had a “tribunal” to determine their status AS POW’s, we are giving them all the full rights as POW’s until then. Since we discussed this before, complete with links to the ICRC site, you know you are wrong when you say this. If you had read the news you would know this is false. If you had read this thread you would have seen Avenger’s post which has three links contradicting what you just said > [@](#): > > BBC: US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has insisted that al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects being held at the Guantanamo base in Cuba will not be given prisoner of war status. > [@](#): > > BBC: US President George W Bush has made it clear that prisoners captured in Afghanistan - and those who are now being held in Cuba - will not be treated as prisoners of war. > After weeks of international criticism, the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer said there would be no change in the way they were being treated. > [@](#): > > FOX: Touring Camp X-Ray where Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners are being interrogated under U.S. custody, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Sunday ruled out any possibility of granting prisoner of war status to the suspected terrorists held in the makeshift prison. > > “They are not POWs. They will not be determined to be POWs,” Rumsfeld told reporters accompanying him on his first visit to the detention facility on a U.S. Naval Base. > > The Bush administration considers the captured fighters to be “unlawful combatants” and “detainees” because their method of terror violates internationally accepted laws and specifically targets civilians. So much for that. > [@](#): > > The only complaint the ICRC has recently aired is that the USA has been dragging it’s feet on a tribunal to determine POW status- not that the "internees’ are being denied any of their rights under the GC. There is no feet dragging as the US has said (see above) that they are not considered POWs and there is not going to be any further review of that point. > [@](#): > > The Internees do not have to be allowed “direct communication” with their families Again, if you had read the thread you would see i wquoted the Geneva convention which says in article 8 > [@](#): > > As soon as possible, every prisoner must be enabled to correspond with his family himself, under the conditions provided in Articles 36 et seq. it says “himself”, not through the Red Cross, not through others but "himself. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/118 "2003-07-14T20:53:59Z")
\ Yes, the Internees have not been accorded the STATUS of POWS, but they have been accorded all of the RIGHTS of POWs. The USA is allowing the ICRC full rights of access & inspection, and they are being gievn all the rights of POWs until their status is determined. Which, incidentally, is the correct way to do it under the GC. And, the GC also does not state how long the USA has to determine their POW status, altho the ICRC thinks we are taking advantage of a loophole, and should so determine (and I agree). Yes, that is very nice and all that you interpret the GC that way (which is not one, but some 80+ treaties, and since you don’t know even that, you don’t know Jacksh\*t about the subject. Neither do I, mind you, but I at least know that) however, since the ICRC, which is chartered to inspect & interpret the Geneva Accords thinks differently, well- we know who is wrong, don’t we? Hmm, let us see- some poster on the SDMB, with no experience in International law- or the ICRC, who to beleive, who to beleive… “Red Cross messages” are 'direct communication", according to the ICRC. That’s why they are set up like that- under the direct auspices of the Genva Accords. Wrong again. Wrong each & every time. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/119 "2003-07-14T21:02:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > It is amazing. You guys have been shown to be wrong on nearly every single point, but you don’t give up. Here is another point- the USA has NOT denied the Internees the “protections of the geneva Convention”- the ICRC in it’s role as Inspectors under the Geneva Convention has been given full access to the “internees”. And, since the USA has not had a “tribunal” to determine their status AS POW’s, we are giving them all the full rights as POW’s until then. I just posted three cites to the contrary. I am sure you have at least another three to prove me wrong. Please post cites saying the Prisoners are being given all the rights and protections of the Geneva convention. Does anyone else here agree with this? If you read the Geneva convention which I cited above you will see: > [@](#): > > They may also be interned in enclosed camps; they may not be confined or imprisoned except as an indispensable measure of safety or sanitation, and only while the circumtances which necessitate the measure continue to exist. > > ARTICLE 10. > Prisoners of war shall be lodged in buildings or in barracks affording all possible guarantees of hygiene and healthfulness. > > The quarters must be fully protected from. dampness, sufficiently heated and lighted. All precautions must be taken against danger of fire. > > With regard to dormitories the total surface, minimum cubic amount of air, arrangement and material of bedding-the conditions shall be the same as for the troops at base camps of the detaining Power. I am sure you have cites showing this is being done. Please show some cites proving the prisoners are being housed in quarters similar to that of the American soldiers. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > The only complaint the ICRC has recently aired is that the USA has been dragging it’s feet on a tribunal to determine POW status- not that the "internees’ are being denied any of their rights under the GC. Please post some cites where the ICRC says the USA is meeting all the provisions of the Geneva Convention except “that the USA has been dragging it’s feet on a tribunal to determine POW status”. Does _anybody_ here support what Dr Deth is saying? Anybody? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418/120 "2003-07-14T22:59:01Z")
No, sailors- none of your cites said that the internees were not being given the RIGHTS or PROTECTIONS of POWs under the GA, they said they were not being given the STATUS of POWs. You can have the rights without the status, you know. “Status” does not equal “rights”. They do have the full rights & protections, in fact there has been a permanent Red Cross Inspection team established there since early 1992. Try [http://www.icrc.org/web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/](http://www.icrc.org/web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/) or if that doesn’t get you there, go to [www.icrc.org](http://www.icrc.org) and navigate from the home page. No, the ICRC does not say the USA is meeting 'all the provisions" of the GC. Nor do they they were ane not: killing them, or tickling them to death, or staking them out in the broiling sun by renegade apaches- WITH the optional anthill, mind you. :rolleyes: It simply fails to note any other problems other that the fact that the USA has not 'clarified the status" of the internees. However, I do note that in Jan 2002 the ICRC did advise the USA about problems with “the size and exposed nature of detention cells”, and thus we corrected this. Yes, that is so very nice you can quote one samll out-of-contect section of one of 80 treaties. When you get your degree in International Law, please let us know so we can then think your reading of such an isolated out-of-context section means something. For now, the REAL experts- the ICRC- think otherwise. If you think they are wrong, I posted their address a few threads ago- please do write them, I am sure they would be glad to hear that an American with no legal knowledge, with no experience, no training, and who hasn’t even visited the site knows more about the situation that they do. Thrilled even. :dubious: Note that the ICRC website specifically says “In any case, the US has the right to legally prosecute any internee at Guantanamo bay suspected of having commited war crimes or any other crimes punishable under US law prior to or during the hostilities”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-why-are-only-us-citizens-allowed-civilian-legal-representation/186418.md?page=7)