Ah, no problem. Carry on.
Besides, the guilty parties know who they are. How they sleep at night is what I’d like to know.
True enough. The problem is that the administration is claiming the right to subject anyone anywhere to indefinite detention without review. Geneva is not the issue – the administration claims it does not apply to these folks.
Which is my belief, too. Or at least, that I believe an honest interpretation of the Conventions put them outside the POW protections. (This is all predicate on not accepting the 1977 Protocols, which I really have little trouble with - the way those are worded it appears that they’d give POW protections to out and out bandits as well as partisans, and terrorists.) However, that does not mean that the occupying power has the freedom to make them unpersons that do not have the protections of the rule of law, only that once they have been proven, or judged, to be outside the POW protections they can be punished as the court deems fit as criminals not soldiers. And, frankly, if that were to happen, I’d have no problem with seeing them sentenced to life imprisonment.
I’m just not happy with making them non-persons. I do not support what is being done with the detainees on a legal front. And part of the reason for that is that I do believe that there is more than sufficient legal recourse to hold these people, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I mean the rule of law. This may sound like I’m supporting the idea of “Give them all a fair trial and hang them.” I really don’t have a problem with that characterization, as long as you understand I do insist on a fair trial where the rights of the accused are protected.
And would like to see the US formally accept the Geneva Conventions, if not the 1977 Protocols. (And I’m one of those nasty US citizens who’s disgusted with the record of the World Court, too.)
NZ is in no place to criticise. We recently held a man without charge for far far far too long. Happily he is out (on bail) now.
What I don’t understand and has probably been explained before but…How does America have G’itmo? I believe America still has a complete blockade on Cuban goods, how do they “own” part of Cuba?
And even when they do apparently own that part of Cuba why wern’t these bad bad dangerous types bought to the U.S? Wouldn’t that have been more “secure”?
If you’re going to lock someone up forever, isn’t it more humane just to kill them from the get-go? There must be some precedent for this… ah yes, here we go.
Can anybody translate this manual? It appears to be in German.
Short answer: Cuba leased it to the US in 1903
Long answer: http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/history%20volume%201.htm
Just a WAG, but they have more “legal flexibility” if the prisoners aren’t on US soil.
It is never more humane to kill somone. Never. But you be fucking right. What kind of hell is that for the innocent? No charges. No court dates. Just hell unlimited.
Cecil’s explanation:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940617b.html
Short version: the US got the base as part of a deal with Cuba over 100 years ago.
Did you have apple juice and a BLT for breakfast too Sublight?
Ok thank you. I bet Cuba feels like it has major old mud on it’s face.
It just amuses me (well amuses is is the wrong word), I just find it ironic that the American government choses to abuse human rights in a part of a country it condemns for abusing human rights.
It’s just funny in a sad way.
Excuse me, but reading the story actually makes me sick to my stomach.
How the Fuck (pardon the French, I mean Freedom) does anyone think that democracy and long term interests of the United States of America are best served in this way?
The US does not own Gitmo, it’s leased from Cuba (even if Castro never cashes the rent checks) and is still Cuban territory. That’s the reason - if these people were on US territory, they’d have some less-ignorable right to court access and counsel and all that stuff that would be totally inconvenient, and that’s without getting into the 24/7 demonstrations outside the bases where they’d be held. Where they are, the military can do what they want. Well, the Cubans could claim they’re under Cuban protection, but that wouldn’t mean anything in practice.
Off topic, but I’ve always wondered…what happens to the money? I mean, I assume the US invests it somewhere, but is it still on the books as Cuban money? Could Castro one day change his mind and say, hey, I’d like all that cash now, please?
There’s an additional consideration for using Gitmo, plus those already mentioned above.
Because the base is completely isolated from the rest of the island (We’re talking minefields that have a reputation for eating wildlife on a regular basis, and stories of occaisional servicemembers, too) and the only civilians not brought in by the DOD are Cuban nationals who have jobs on the base. (Interestingly these jobs are now, AIUI, family legacies - with great status, and offering a higher standard of living for most other Cubans.) Other than that, everyone else who arrives in Gitmo is in some way under the control of the DOD. I would suggest that there is nowhere in the US or any of its other territories that is as secure.
BTW, Danalan, what is your suggestion for dealing with partisans, terrorists or guerillas? As I think is clear from my other posts, I’m not in support of holding without charges or trial anyone. But, what is your suggestion for dealing with someone in one of those categories?
I’m not certain, but I seem to recall claims that Germany in WWII, with the exception of some notorious examples during the Battle of the Bulge, was rather scrupulous about treating prisoners in accordance with the earlier Geneva Accords. Of course partisans were completely ignored by the Geneva Accords. This seems to be why the 1977 Protocols were added to the 1949 Conventions. Unfortunately, coming up with a general definition of guerillas, or partisans, is something that’s damned hard to do, since so many of the conditions involved are so irregular. There are going to be some groups that most anyone can point to as being deserving of treatment as regular combatants, but how do you draw line between those rare groups and people like, say, Somali warlords, Timothy McVeigh, or out and out bandits and terrorists?
No easy answers here, myself. Just showing the extent of the difficulties.
They didn’t treat the Russians so well, but that was because Stalin did not abide by the Accords - and thus Russian POWs suffered relative to American or British POWs. The Gulag Archipelago has a large section about this. Of course being captured by the Germans and escaping was a crime for Stalin. Still, that shows the benefit of living by the Accords - it encourages your enemy to do so also.
Agreed. Sorry if I gave an impression otherwise.
The problem here, of course, is not necessarily with what’s being done in any particular case, but the assertion of a right by the executive to hold anyone they can get their hands on without any form of review other than their own.
Now, I know that in practice the US can’t get its hands on everybody everywhere. But by claiming, as the Bush regime is arguing in court, that it is “for the president to decide” what constitutes an arena of conflict and when conflict exists, and that civilians living in non-combat zones engaged in peaceful activities (who might have some knowledge about other folks they’re looking for) should be subject to indefinite detention by the US without the right of habeas corpus, the administration is in fact attempting to establish a universal right to hold whomever it pleases.
They admit, after all, that if, say, my Columbian sister-in-law were teaching Spanish in Sweden and one of her pupils turned out to be someone they suspected of being a terrorist, they would have the right – if they could get to her – to hold her indefinitely and interrogate her.
I just don’t see how anyone can support this, cannot see what a dangerous policy it is. But then, I’m just little old human and fallible me.
Simple, it’s the same thing that happened after the Oklahoma City bombing, the crash of TWA 800, and with the Patriot Act - perfect safety was demanded, and politicians have offered up a deal: a few, inconsequential rights in return for that safety.
And some people are buying it. 
There are theological and literary archetypes of that sort of contract…they usually involve lots of red, and horns, and leathery batlike wings, though…
Did you have apple juice and a BLT for breakfast too World Eater?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall the administration claiming that the prisoners at Gitmo were not covered by the protections of the U.S. Constitution because Gitmo was not U.S. soil, but then claiming that the staff at Gitmo were immune from prosecution for war crimes because Gitmo was, in fact, U.S. soil.