US 'must close Guantanamo camp'

[DoYouEverWonder]

19 May 2006

The US should close the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba and any secret "war on terror" detention facilities abroad, a United Nations report has said.

The UN Committee against Torture said that detaining persons in such conditions was a violation of the UN Convention against Torture.

It also urged the US to put in place "immediate measures" to eradicate torture of detainees by its troops.

The committee's report follows a hearing in early May into US conduct.

"The state party should cease to detain any person at Guantanamo Bay and close the detention facility," the 11-page report said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4996798.stm


Lot's of luck UN. Does anyone think Bush and Bolton give a shit what the UN thinks?

[OKNancy]

1. AP story on same subject

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/14616570.htm

[flobee1]

2. and Reuters

looks like the whole world is watching!




edit: CBC top story also

[Triana]

3. US: Rogue State...

US to "Skirt Geneva Conventions"

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19175460%5E1702,00.html

The UN is "irrelevant" remember. And, it's clear the US is not about to stop illegally detaining and torturing people.

[lonecentrist]

4. Thats fine and dandy

But where does the UN suggest we keep prisoners that are captured on the battlefield or in raids. Many of these people are not your average criminals.

[jayfish]

6. Here's An Idea,...

give them a trial and either jail them according to their post-trial sentence or free them. Nobody knows if they are "average criminals" because no one has been charged or given a trial.

Jay

[Triana]

20. "Nobody knows if they are "average criminals" because...

...one has been charged or given a trial."

Bingo! And this is part of the issue.

[Thorandmjolnir]

7. You're right

Most of them are not even criminals.

Read the report out of Seton Hall law school.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. What does that have to do

with abiding by the Geneva Conventions which has very clear rules regarding the treatment of prisoners?

Do unto others has you have done unto yourself.

[toopers]

11. The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war . . .

not terrorists.

[jayfish]

13. How Do You Know What Any Of Them Are?

Jay

[stevekatz]

15. because

The conventions are very clear in defining what a POW is..

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention states
-----------

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.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

----------

If a person does not meet these 4 requirements, they are not considered a POW under the Geneva convention are not entitled to the protections therein. Don't flame me, I am just the messenger, I didnt write the convention.

I do agree that people detained should be given trials, there is a long history and tradition of Military Tribunals in this country, that if adminstered properly would be adequate to the task.

[The Stranger]

17. Those requirements are intended to PRIVILEGE COMBATANTS,

NOT TO LIMIT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A PRISONER OF WAR IS.

Anyone who meets these four criteria MAY NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER, EVEN IF THEY SHOT SOMEONE. THEY RECEIVE A PRIVILEGE.

THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM USING THIS DEFINITION TO CREATE A FALSE CATEGORY OF PEOPLE THAT MAY BE TORTURED. THIS IS COMPLETELY AT ODDS WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

[jayfish]

18. Nice Try

First of all you don't know if any of our prisoners conform to any of the requirements because they are being secretly held. Second, you forgot a couple of things:

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, fulfill the following conditions:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Way to cherry-pick


Jay

[stevekatz]

19. I didnt cherry pick anything

Unless you want me to post the entire Article,
Your the one being decietful here,

The first article, you "cherrypicked" is the header into what I posted. Members of Al'Qeda do not meet that standard. Unless they went out and got a uniform (with rank insignias) and someone forgot to tell me.

The second paragraph you posted leads into thier receiving a hearing at a tribuanl, which I stated quite clearly was needed in my original post.

[jayfish]

26. Sure You Did.

You quoted only the conditions of Article 4, Section 2 because you thought they supported your argument. Section 2. on it's own, does not support your argument. Lets look at those conditions you cherry picked. ...shall we?

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. Who is making the determination that this condition has not been met? You think this is just unorganized spur of the moment resistance?

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; This must be where your "uniform (with rank insignias)" argument comes from. Where does the condition say anything about those two things? It says a "sign". That being said, since I'm sure a majority of our troops in Iraq cannot read arabic, how do we know?

(c) That of carrying arms openly; Well, that kinda answers itself doesn't it. If they weren't carrying arms then whats the problem.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Got a definition of that for me? Don't forget to include examples like the French Resistance, the Warsaw Ghetto or the American Revolution.

Now that all seems pretty murky to me so I would go with section five. Yes you did mention trials, but it was outside the context of the Conventions and posited from the prospective of, I think they should have trials too, but since the Conventions don't mention them, waddya gonna do :shrug:? Look, I don't have a problem with holding POWs or terrorists but it needs to be open for all the world to see and a public determination needs to be made about who these people are, why they are being held and when they can expect their cases to be adjudicated.

Jay


SPELLING EDIT(I gotta have one for every post)

[CHICKEN CAPITOL USA]

28. Excellent ! THAT is TRULY the technique- no BS just facts -KEEP IT UP!

great example of how a debate is won !!!!
You've shown the facts, exposed the flaws in an argument, and explained why your view is valid.

These are the types of rebuttals that are most effective indeed!!!
Let these types of posts be an example to others.

BRAVO!!
:thumbsup:

[The Stranger]

16. How do you know what they are? Everything is a fucking lie and if it

isn't a lie, then it is a secret.

[jayfish]

5. Misleading Headline.

I know it's not your fault, but the word must is nowhere else in the story but the title. The difference between the word should and must is huge.

Jay

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. The headlines and the story

are often written by two different people. Usually, it's the headline that's diluted. I won't be surprised to see a 'correction' later on.

[lonecentrist]

10. I'm on your side but there is a problem

Most if not all prisoneers of war are not given trials until the war is over.

[jayfish]

12. So Now They Are Prisoners Of War?

Doesn't that grant them protection under the Geneva Conventions?

Jay

[rmgarrette64]

23. If they're POWs, yes.

But that's the heart of the question, are they POW's? Honestly, it's very easy to argue that they are not. There were not in uniform, nor part of a military organizatioon. By the same token, they're not criminals either - they were fighting against the military.

The best category for them, really, is spies. Non-uniformed, but engaged in operations against the military. And that is a category of people who are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (as far as I understand it - I am by no means an expert, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night ;-)

Mind you, I'd have preferred if the debate over their status had been held openly, but I more or less agree that, for this category of combatants, we can hold them as long as we want, and they don't have any rights as criminals. Again, the debate should have been open, and holding them should be humane - no torture, and allow Red Cross monitoring.

Anyway, that's where I'd come down on this one.

R. Garrett

[Bridget Burke]

25. Nobody knows WHY all those guys were apprehended.

In the US, even "criminals" have rights. They get trials--not military kangaroo courts, which are NOT courts martial.

[jayfish]

27. Other That Here...

Article 27

Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war in sufficient quantities by the Detaining Power, which shall make allowance for the climate of the region where the prisoners are detained. Uniforms of enemy armed forces captured by the Detaining Power should, if suitable for the climate, be made available to clothe prisoners of war.

Where is the word uniform written in the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War".

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Jay

[MessiahRp]

22. And when will this pretend war on terror end?

So we should keep them without trial until they die of old age? The War on Terror is a way to keep Americans afraid and voting Republican, as well as a way to justify military action on other targets for an imperialistic strategy.

These people, most I would bet, have nothing to do with attacking us. We're racially profiling people and sticking them in there. But they're not given the benefit of a trial to prove such.

Rp

[Bridget Burke]

24. We are being told the Gitmo inmates are not really POW's.

And when will be know the War on Terror(TM) is over?

[Radio_Guy]

14. No, Bush and Bolton don't care what the UN says

That is why if Gitmo isn't closed soon, the UN must go there and close it themselves. I am so sick and tired of the Bushies thumbing their nose at the UN. They either need to get in line or the UN will make them tow the line.

[MessiahRp]

21. UN urges US to shut Guantanamo prison

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060519/D8HMUM800.html

GENEVA (AP) - The United States should close its prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and avoid using secret detention facilities in the war on terror, the U.N. panel that monitors compliance with the world's anti-torture treaty said Friday.

The Committee Against Torture also said detainees should not be returned to any country where they could face a "real risk" of being tortured.

The criticism, contained in an 11-page report, followed a hearing in Geneva this month on U.S. adherence to the 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture. The criticism carries no penalties beyond international scrutiny, but human rights observers say it could influence U.S. public opinion and hence the government.

-snip-

The Pentagon on Monday handed over the first list of everyone who has been held at Guantanamo Bay, and none of the most notorious terrorist suspects were named, raising questions about their whereabouts.

Rp