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.
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?
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.
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 :-
Not true.
OK………interrogation isn’t a violation of their rights, so what “other rights” are they being denied?
You may be right, but if so, it wasn’t invented by this administration…………
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.
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.
sailor: Since that article applies to POWs and the detainees at GITMO aren’t POWs, it’s pretty irrelevant.
Monty my response here.
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?
Sailor, you’re killing yourself.
First, allow me to update to the 1949 Geneva Convention…
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:
Now, allow me to turn the tables a little. Assume these detainees are POWs.
If they don’t, then they are subject to:
+MDI, I actually discussed that point on page 2, about 3/4 of the way down.
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.
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.
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 .
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
So much for that.
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.
Again, if you had read the thread you would see i wquoted the Geneva convention which says in article 8
it says “himself”, not through the Red Cross, not through others but "himself.
<sigh> 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.
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:
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:
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?
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/ or if that doesn’t get you there, go to 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”.