# I just heard the USAF colonel who's prosecuting the Gitmo detainees **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215 "2006-03-13T19:37:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/41 "2006-03-14T15:02:05Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > I am by no means condoning the current situation at Gitmo, however a number of those captured were captured in acts of ‘combat’ without Internationally recognized uniforms (according the Hague Accords, Geneva Convention, and the UN charter); and by definition are terrorists. Actually, being a terrorist doesn’t make you exempt from being deemed a “soldier” (under the GC, anyway) in the same way that actions performed while not in uniform does. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/42 "2006-03-14T15:03:36Z")
Oh, and **Elendil’s Heir** , thanks for your response. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/43 "2006-03-14T15:17:55Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > "I am by no means condoning the current situation at Gitmo, however a number of those captured: > > - were captured in acts of ‘combat’ > - without Internationally recognized uniforms (according the Hague Accords, Geneva Convention, and the UN charter);" **(my punctuation)** Cite please? > [@EEMan](#): > > “and by definition are terrorists.” I think you will find this is not so. I.e. ‘terrorist’ is not defined in any legal instrument that may apply. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/44 "2006-03-14T15:18:42Z")
Non-soldiers attacking anyone, falls under an illegal act (attacking, not defending; as there are different rules regarding such actions); terrorism is not covered under the GC, but definitions of soldiers (and requirements for their actions) are. The UN Resolution 1373 (2001) covers the ground rules for terrorism (several other resolutions have followed, and there is a counter-terrorism group at the UN now). The best difinition I have found for a ‘terrorist’ (and seems to be the most common as well, from groups on terrorism to dictionaries) would be : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Where terror is defined as: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands \. I see no issue with that defintion and the actions described. Though if you want to use the GC as a guideline; we can simply summerally kill all those non-soldiers, as they have no protections. The Hague Accords would classify them as spys, and their fate wouldn’t be ‘fun’. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/45 "2006-03-14T15:24:56Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > Non-soldiers attacking anyone, falls under an illegal act . . . An “illegal act” is AKA a “crime.” We have mechanisms for dealing with crimes. Those mechanisms include protections for persons accused of them. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/46 "2006-03-14T15:29:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > An “illegal act” is AKA a “crime.” We have mechanisms for dealing with crimes. Those mechanisms include protections for persons accused of them. I believe the ‘other side’ believes those protections apply to US citizens or crimes commited in the US. Illegal act is the term used in several of the GC’s and much of the UN resolutions, but yes I would accept that an illegal act is a crime. According to international law those crimes commited during time of war are the purview of military tribunals, though that is not the way I would like to see it handled. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/47 "2006-03-14T15:37:28Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Cite please? Not sure what would be specific enough, but the first one I could find (again… I’ll keep looking if this does not satisfy your request was [here](http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/Set_1_0001-0097.pdf) page 10-11. > [@](#): > > I think you will find this is not so. I.e. ‘terrorist’ is not defined in any legal instrument that may apply. I would have not know what legal instrument you were going to accept, but you are correct if you are speaking to the GC, UN charter, or HA. Though as I posted above the UN has since added some defining characteristics, and a few different definitions (all similiar, but not exactly the same). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/48 "2006-03-14T15:46:08Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > I would have not know what legal instrument you were going to accept, but you are correct if you are speaking to the GC, UN charter, or HA. Though as I posted above the UN has since added some defining characteristics, and a few different definitions (all similiar, but not exactly the same). Trying to do some cursory research on that, I came across the following, which is interesting: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Etymology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Etymology) The word “terrorism” originally (in the 18th and 19th centuries) was applied only to actions by states. Rebels who used what we now would call “terrorist” tactics were known as “incendiaries.” ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/49 "2006-03-14T15:53:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Trying to do some cursory research on that, I came across the following, which is interesting: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Etymology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Etymology) The word “terrorism” originally (in the 18th and 19th centuries) was applied only to actions by states. Rebels who used what we now would call “terrorist” tactics were known as “incendiaries.” Thanks for the link, I did not know the Etymology of the word. I’l also not aware of the mention of “incendiaries” in the HA or GC (and pretty sure it isn’t in the UN charter). I’ll some searching through the HA’s and GC’s and see if there is any stated way of dealing with “incendiaries”. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/50 "2006-03-14T17:11:27Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > I am by no means condoning the current situation at Gitmo, however a number of those captured were captured in acts of ‘combat’ without Internationally recognized uniforms (according the Hague Accords, Geneva Convention, and the UN charter); and by definition are terrorists. Is it a majority of those captured? That I do not know, but the number is not zero (as some of the evidence you posted shows). It’s a little more complicated than that, but your point is still well taken. From the GC: > [@](#): > > Article 4 > > A. 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: > > 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. > > 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: > > (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; > > (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; > > (c) That of carrying arms openly; > > (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. > > 1. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. > > 2. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. > > 3. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. > > 4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. > > B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: > > 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. > > 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/51 "2006-03-14T17:15:22Z")
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with that post. The section that I was specifcally referring to in my post is listed as #2b; which is a requirement for any PoW application. There is a similiar statement in the HA and the UN charter. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/52 "2006-03-14T17:16:55Z")
> [@Elendil's Heir](#): > > Just a nitpick: this was a law school audience, and included about equal numbers of law students, law profs and lawyers (and yours truly, a muni court magistrate). Thanks for the correction. No offense was intended; please don’t sue me, ha ha, he said in airy jest. Actually I’d be immensely relieved if you could pick nits from my main concern as well. In all seriousness, the colonel’s notion of keeping the Gitmo detainees imprisoned without trial for “centuries” sounds genuinely batshit insane. I can’t think of a single realistic scenario that could possibly justify treatment even remotely approaching his suggestion. In any case, the admission that the U.S. government is even open to the possibility of holding people without trial for the extent of their natural lives seems like an odd way to persuade a roomful of legal professionals that the Guantanamo system is fair and just. How was this remark recieved by the audience? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/53 "2006-03-14T17:24:04Z")
…around the Bush Adm’s neck. i can’t see any positive outcome to this. Consider the options: 1. release them: if they wer’nt terrorists, they sure will want to be now! Also, some of them may be killed by Al-Queda, as the terrorists would have assumed they have blabbed. 2. try them; aside from the technical difficulties, what happens if nothing can be proven? -back to option (1) 3. keep them in custody: this way the US gets a barrage of bad press from ACLU, AI, etc. This leads me to believe: most of these people are real terroists. If that is the case, release them with monitoring devices-see where the rats gather. unfortunately, no good course of action possible. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/54 "2006-03-14T17:32:05Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with that post. The section that I was specifcally referring to in my post is listed as #2b; which is a requirement for any PoW application. > > There is a similiar statement in the HA and the UN charter. What point was I trying to make? I was just correcting your oversimplification of the POW determination. It’s not just a matter of uniform vs no uniform. Do you still think it is? ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/55 "2006-03-14T17:37:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > What point was I trying to make? I was just correcting your oversimplification of the POW determination. It’s not just a matter of uniform vs no uniform. Do you still think it is? Thanks for clearing that up for me. I never thought it was a question of ‘uniform or no uniform’ (though that is a requirement); I was giving a criteria that I know wasn’t met, I can’t say the same for the rest of the requirements. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/56 "2006-03-14T19:41:48Z")
I know it’s bad form to talk about the Google Ads, but why in the hell are they advertising 36 hour MCAT review videos, Med. School Admissions counselors, and 4/6 year European medical schools? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/57 "2006-03-14T20:04:18Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > I am by no means condoning the current situation at Gitmo, however a number of those captured were captured in acts of ‘combat’ without Internationally recognized uniforms (according the Hague Accords, Geneva Convention, and the UN charter); and by definition are terrorists. Is it a majority of those captured? That I do not know, but the number is not zero (as some of the evidence you posted shows). …I think that you will find that your definition of terrorist does not conform to any recognized definition of the word. I think that you will also find the definition of “combat” as used by US forces is one that is different from the one you would imagine as well. Remember, only around 25 out of 500 detainees were captured by the Americans. The rest of the prisoners were given to them. Can you show me what the Geneva Convention says about prisoners who were obtained via third parties for money? ---
**Author:** ![jawdirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jawdirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jawdirk)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/58 "2006-03-14T20:06:13Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > I know it’s bad form to talk about the Google Ads, but why in the hell are they advertising 36 hour MCAT review videos, Med. School Admissions counselors, and 4/6 year European medical schools? Probably my reference to the American Medical Association. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/59 "2006-03-14T20:14:48Z")
> [@Banquet Bear](#): > > …I think that you will find that your definition of terrorist does not conform to any recognized definition of the word. I’m assuming you mean the implied definition given in your quoted statement. To that end, you might find it interesting to read over the resolutions passed by the UN Committee on Counter-Terrorism [http://www.un.org/sc/ctc/](http://www.un.org/sc/ctc/) > [@](#): > > I think that you will also find the definition of “combat” as used by US forces is one that is different from the one you would imagine as well. Unless it has changed since I was IN combat; I believe I have a pretty strong idea of what it means (also if you read some of my further posts, I have passed cited passages of fighting against US troops). > [@](#): > > Remember, only around 25 out of 500 detainees were captured by the Americans. My comment was never that they were caught in combat with the US (though some were, as you seem to suggest), and since the GC is international in its intent it doesn’t matter who they were in combat with, they are not considered soldiers by the international standards of the HA’s, GC’s, nor UN charter ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/60 "2006-03-14T21:25:22Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > …I’d be immensely relieved if you could pick nits from my main concern as well. In all seriousness, the colonel’s notion of keeping the Gitmo detainees imprisoned without trial for “centuries” sounds genuinely batshit insane. I can’t think of a single realistic scenario that could possibly justify treatment even remotely approaching his suggestion. In any case, the admission that the U.S. government is even open to the possibility of holding people without trial for the extent of their natural lives seems like an odd way to persuade a roomful of legal professionals that the Guantanamo system is fair and just. How was this remark recieved by the audience? If you accept his premise that the War on Terror might grind on for generations - he likened it to the Cold War, for instance - and such detainees are to be held “for the duration,” then some if not all of them might very well die in custody, having never been charged or brought to trial. I strongly disagree with this policy, but it is least consistent with the Bush Administration’s overall approach to the conflict. It’s hard to judge audience reaction. No one was shouting in protest, but I didn’t hear any muttered "Right on!"s, either. The audience was polite and let him say his piece, but many of the later questions were quite pointed, as I noted in the OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215.md?page=4)