This piece of shit cannot pass! More foam-flecked Bush bashing.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

It was only those specific charges that could be argued to subject them to prosecution before a military tribunal. The Gitmo prisoners haven’t been charged with anything yet. “Violation of the law of war” would not stick without a clear showing we were at war at the time and they were supporting the “enemy.” And the “enemy,” I would argue, would have to be an actual state, not an underground criminal network such as al-Qaeda.

Those are certainly arguments. But they are not arguments that have been found valid by the courts, as yet.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

How is their nationality relevant to their status?

He was answering this:

@elucidator

Besides which, shouldn’t Afghan citizens be afforded the presumption of resisting a foreign invasion? Are only uniformed soldiers legitimate?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Diogenes the Cynic

How is their nationality relevant to their status?

No doubt the presumption is that non-Afghanis were there as recruits to and footsoldiers of al Qaeda.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

He was answering this:

Yes, that’s right. Thanks.

I’m not implying that these guys are guilty of anything necessarily, but most of them were not “Afghan citizens… resisting a foreign invasion”.

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

If they’re prisoners, and we’re at war like Bush claims, then ipso facto.

Negatory.

We’re supposed to be better than them. We’re supposed to stand for something. That isn’t enough?

Not even remotely related to the point I was making. Do you just have a random canned response generator???

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The government first would have to prove they’re not POWs. The GC states that if there is any doubt as to status, they’re to be afforded all the protections of the Convention. SCOTUS has already telegraphed (IMO) that the circular tactic of claiming they can be treated as “unlawful combatants” because W has already decreed a priori that they are unlawful combatants is not going to fly. It’s like saying we don’t have to give due process to “guilty” people and then declaring “guilt” by nothing but decree.

Not quite. The requirements to claim POW status are laid out. If you don’t qualify, then you don’t qualify.

Moreover, the appeals court found that the Geneva Conventions did not apply, because Hamdi was a member of al-Queda, which was not a signatory to the accords. The Supreme Court did not reverse that reasoning. They did point out that even though not a signatory, Common Article 3 binds the US provide some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory.

So the state of the law right now is that Hamdi and others in Gitmo similarly situated are NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions, except by the protections mentioned in Common Article 3.

[John_Mace]

Hamdan. Hamdi was the US born Saudi that we released a few years ago.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

Moreover, the appeals court found that the Geneva Conventions did not apply, because Hamdi was a member of al-Queda, which was not a signatory to the accords.

A question; is any organisation a signatory to the accords? I thought it was only nations.

[Bricker]

@John Mace

Hamdan. Hamdi was the US born Saudi that we released a few years ago.

:smack: Yup. My bad.

[Bricker]

@Revenant Threshold

A question; is any organisation a signatory to the accords? I thought it was only nations.

So far, I believe that’s true. The administration’s legal approach here is that al-Q is effectively acting as a nation-state and should be treated as one. The appeals court agreed. The Supreme Court did not reverse this finding.

[BrainGlutton]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

No doubt the presumption is that non-Afghanis were there as recruits to and footsoldiers of al Qaeda.

That would make them POWs under GC Article 4, Section A, Paragraph 1 – assuming al-Quaeda was a “party to the conflict,” and how could the Bush Admin argue it wasn’t?

[Guinastasia]

@John Mace

Quite simple. What if you capture a spy? Surely you know that spies are not afforded POW status, right?

The main issue at hand, though, is whether or not you can interrogate someone. And this isn’t just about torture. If these guys are POWs we couldn’t, for instance, offer better treatment to any of them who rats out terror plots or gives other information about terror organizations. Now, I’m not certain any of these Gitmo detainees has that sort of information, but that’s a function of the way the military captured these guys in the first place. There certainly are folks who have been capture, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who could give us valuable info. Again, I’m not endorsing the administrations position on torture, but you needn’t want to torture these guys in order to not want them to be POWs.

That makes sense. I’m just shocked that the excuse given for the shitty treatment, let alone torture is, “well, the GC doesn’t apply here.” I would think treating prisoners-whoever they are, humanely, would be the law of the land.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

So far, I believe that’s true. The administration’s legal approach here is that al-Q is effectively acting as a nation-state and should be treated as one. The appeals court agreed. The Supreme Court did not reverse this finding.

Now all they have to do is prove that any of the detainees at Gitmo have a fucking thing to do with al Qaeda.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Not quite. The requirements to claim POW status are laid out. If you don’t qualify, then you don’t qualify.

Then they need to be treated as civilian non-combatants, absent a shred of fucking evidence that they are anything else.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

Negatory.

You do have an argument there, don’t you? Right?

Not even remotely related to the point I was making. Do you just have a random canned response generator???

You asked why these people should be treated as POW’s. That’s why. Do you have an argument there, either? One that’s actually based on some sort of principle other than personal loyalty to Bush?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

The administration’s legal approach here is that al-Q is effectively acting as a nation-state and should be treated as one.

That would make its “troops” POWs – see post #131.

[elucidator]

@ElvisL1ves

…other than personal loyalty to Bush?

Friend **John]/b] might be justly accused on any number of charges. Blackguard, scoundrel, pigeon fancier. But actual membership in the Legion of the Damned?

I trust not.

[ElvisL1ves]

You see a difference in him anymore? There was a time, sure. But now?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

So far, I believe that’s true. The administration’s legal approach here is that al-Q is effectively acting as a nation-state and should be treated as one. The appeals court agreed. The Supreme Court did not reverse this finding.

In order to be considered as a nation, the said organisation must control an area of land. Is it the Supreme Court’s opinion, then, that al-Quaeda is a stateless nation, or is there an area of land over which it is considered they hold sovereignty?

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

That would make them POWs under GC Article 4, Section A, Paragraph 1 – assuming al-Quaeda was a “party to the conflict,” and how could the Bush Admin argue it wasn’t?

No. A party to the conflict must also be a signatory to the conventions for the conventions to apply.