Know what you are arguing. Many persons captured in Afghanistan

[mmonk]

were not POW's. They were taken to US territory (leasehold estate at Guantanamo). The Geneva Convention does not apply to them nor do military tribunals. Therefore, they need remedy and due process through a court system.

[Exilednight]

1. They should be classified as POW's, but Bush didn't believe in human rights ........

Under the Geneva convention, every person captured in Iraq would now be released.

Afghanistan is slightly different story, but under the Geneva Convention POWs can only be held until an end of hostilities. This would mean that those captured in Afghanistan would still be held as POW's but treated in a humane manner until the end of hostilities.

The Geneva Convention does allow for those that commit war crimes to be held and given a fair trial.

[mmonk]

2. If they did not take up arms against the United States, how can they be

classified as POW's? Wouldn't they have to be engaged in war?

[Exilednight]

3. Define "engaged".

Is the supply sergeant who gives the new recruit a uniform "engaged" in a military action? What about the guy who serves a soldier his meal? A Chaplin is not even allowed to carry a weapon, but under the Geneva Convention he is allowed to be taken as a POW.

World War II also raised the question if a person has to wear a uniform or be formally inducted into the military in order to be considered a soldier. Many European civilians, mostly French and Italian, supplied the allies with information and intelligence. We supplied them with demo charges and small arms - but did that make them soldiers or traitors?

I would argue that it makes them soldiers since traitors are never granted the same rights.

[mmonk]

5. You've bought into the propaganda that all those taken were either

members of terrorist organizations, the Taliban, or some group aligned against the US and plotting actions against it. It's best to become informed so you know the particulars.

[Exilednight]

8. Here's the problem: You can't know the particiulars of each of every ..........

person being held in Cuba. What I do know is that every person held in Cuba should be treated as a POW. POWs do retain rights, unlike the new "combatant detainee" definition that Bush invented.

If these people were being treated like POWs, then we wouldn't be having debates about what constitutes torture or the other umpteen-thousand debates that are being held.

I also fully understand that many of the people being held do not fit into any status by any definition. I agree that these people should be set free immediately.

I honestly wish that Bushco would not have done what they did, but the focus now needs to be how do we undo it. The sad part is, we can not undo everything Bushco has done to these people, but we can fix other parts - starting with classifying every person in Cuba as a POW and giving them the rights that are fully allowed, like letters to family members and such.

[mmonk]

9. Bush ruined a lot of the process.

The key going forward is to not repeat injustices nor engage in denial of rights whether they fall under the Geneva Convention and thus, article six of the Constitution or moved into a court for due process. I hope one day the people know to the full extent what the bush administration did as to violations of all our precepts.

[treestar]

12. Exactly, Obama inherited this mess from Bushco

And some of the people being held might be dangerous terrorists (not to accuse Bushco of competence, but they cast the net so wide they might have caught a real one or two). Obama's administration can't come in within one month with all the answers. Should they be let go or treated as POWs? There's no such thing as an unlawful enemy combatant with no rights - so now our country accepts that. But we're not just going to let all those prisoners go and start over again. If they are POWs that far away, we don't have to try to in our own courts - that doesn't mean we're violating human rights - there are the Geneva conventions and other laws that might apply.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Really? They were all operating under a cohesive and fixed chain of command,

all wearing uniforms and/or possessing a recognizable and distinctive mark visible from a distance, all carried arms openly, and all obeyed all rules and laws of warfare? Really? Every single one of them performed all of the above at all times?

They deserve legal protection under the Geneva Conventions, but as civilians under the Fourth and not as POWs under the Third.

[Exilednight]

21. You're trying to blanket every person captured under one big umbrella.....

Each person being held needs to be judged by the conditions in which they were captured. Article four does allow for someone to be held as a POW - article three has nothing to do with how people are classified - even if they do not fit your rigid definition.

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

When you start looking at international law, you will might be surprised to see that one of those articles specifically deals with terrorists and guerrilla fighters.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Yes. Under the definition of "Prisoner of War."

Your #1 there refers to prisoners who have been released/paroled but were recaptured, and who the occupying power views as still a security threat. Your #2 refers to persons in the custody of non-belligerents. I'm not sure what anything you posted there has to do with this discussion.

[Exilednight]

26. Ah, no ............

Number 1 refers to people who previously served in that nations military - commonly referred to as vets.


I've been out of the military for a few years now, but if invaded, and I was a deemed a threat to invading force, I could be held as a POW.

"1. Persons belonging, or HAVING BELONGED, to the armed forces of the occupied country,"

In Iraq, every male falls into that category.

[Occam Bandage]

29. I think the intent of that passage is clear in the whole paragraph.

That passage is intended to afford POW status to persons who were members of the armed forces, who still pose a security threat as a result of their allegiance to that military. It further makes that clear by specifying that this holds even when the persons have been captured and released already, and it holds in particular when the persons are attempting to rejoin the fight.

In order to nullify this passage, all the United States must do to not afford them POW status is to say "we captured this person not because of their involvement with the Iraqi army, but rather because of specific reason X." GC III: 4 B.(1) no longer applies.

It is certainly true that an occupying power could hold you as a security threat. They could hold literally anyone as a security threat at their discretion. And if they held you specifically because you were a vet and believed you were likely to rejoin the army or join a militia, they would have to give you POW protections. On the other hand, if they held you because they caught you setting bombs to destroy their supply convoys, they wouldn't have to give you POW protections.

[geek tragedy]

4. At Bagram? And you know this, how? n/t

[mmonk]

6. I did not mention Bagram though it is notorious for torture.

[mmonk]

7. The case of Al Hajj :

Al Hajj has been detained since December 2001, when he was arrested traveling between Afghanistan and Pakistan during the U.S. military assault on the Taliban. He was taken into Pakistani custody on the 16th, where after 16 days, he was handed over to U.S. troops. Al Hajj was held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where he claims U.S. forces beat him and accused him of working with al Qaeda. After another move to Kandahar in the custody of the US government, he was flown to Guantanamo Bay on June 16th, 2002, where he remained until his release.

-snip-

Beyond the continuing concern about torture at the U.S.-run jail, al-Hajj has faced medical problems while in US custody. During his time at Guantanamo, he reportedly received 130 interrogations, which mostly focused on his involvement at al Jazeera and its relationship to alleged terrorists. Since January 2007, he has been on a hunger strike against conditions in the prison leading him to lose over 50 pounds, and Reporters Without Borders claims that he has throat cancer that has gone untreated in his time at Guantanamo.


He was finally released.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/breaking_al_jaz.php

[treestar]

10. * invented that "unlawful enemy combatant" category

Of people with no rights, period. They were not to be considered POWs.

Few have even heard of this Bagram place - I'll give the administration time to figure it all out first before jumping on it - if Obama shut Gitmo, why wouldn't he do right by these people? Maybe they are POWs or maybe not.

[mmonk]

11. Yes, it was an invention of the executive branch in order

to violate the law. It is what Naomi Wolf calls using the law to subvert the rule of law.

[EmilyAnne]

14. How can a label be created that will then deny ANY rights at all to human beings who are then

labeled? It makes no sense. Yes, in practice the prisoners had no rights at all. Forget U.S. constitutional rights. These people didn't have the rights guaranteed by the Geneva convention. Now, like I said, this was all true in practice.

Did Bush actually declare a total lack of any rights at all to the prisoners at Gitmo? Or are you talking about U.S. constitutional rights? I just don't see how Bush could have created a little corner of the world where the Geneva convention doesn't apply. I need to do a lot of reading on this.

Thanks for trying to get people like me informed.


:hi:

[mmonk]

15. Yes, he created the "enemy combatant" designation and then

in a memo declared they did not fall under the Geneva Convention. The designation also denies due process as they are held without charge and not allowed access to a court (a violation of the implicit right of habeas corpus). He also allowed "secret evidence" and "evidence" gathered under torture which is a violation of US law.

[EmilyAnne]

13. How does this apply to Obama's decision about the prisoners in Bagram? Are we waiting on another

decision in regards to the Guantanamo prisoners?

[Exilednight]

16. Same messy soup, just on a different burner............

The prisoners at Bagram fall into the same category as those in Cuba.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Here's what I dont understand.....

.... if we establish the precedent that we will try those captured during an international conflict, would that not open the door to allow our enemies to do the same to us?

The notion of American soldiers being tried according to Shi'a Islamic law does not excite me. Ya know?

[Occam Bandage]

20. That isn't a new precedent.

"Captured combatants or civilians engaged in activities an occupier has cause to believe are detrimental to security, if they are not afforded POW protections due to their failure to adhere to the standards for POW protection, are tried under the domestic law of their captors, so long as that law is humane by international standards," is and has been the standard procedure.

If American soldiers were captured in Iran, they would be afforded POW status so long as they had obeyed the laws of war. If they were infiltrators dressed as civilians and attempting to engage in sabotage operations, they might be afforded POW status, and they might be tried under Iranian law. Either would be quite legal, and would be done more with an eye towards world opinion and hopes/fears of American reciprocity than anything else.

[Clio the Leo]

23. But if the leader of Iran deemed the American solider to be an unlawful combatant...

.... you see my point? If a kooke in the West is capable of doing it, what's to stop another leader from doing the same?

[Occam Bandage]

25. You mean if he decided to violate international law by denying POW protections to a POW?

That would be a problem, yes. And a problem that would not be precedented by anything America has done. Our problem is that we've failed to provide any Geneva protections to non-POW detainees. Few people seriously argue that the detainees in Afghanistan deserve POW status.

[Clio the Leo]

27. Yep, that's exactly what I mean.

So what I'm asking is, the leader of (insert random country here) determines that American soldiers he has in custody are enemy combatants, tries them in a court of law ... if you want to call it that .... court of kangaroo perhaps ..... the soldiers are convicted and sent to prison. Our only tools are dimplomacy and weapons.

All because the US set the precedent to try Gitmo detainees in a US court.

I'm not trying to argue a point .... I'm trying to understand. So am I TOTALLY off?

[Occam Bandage]

28. I don't believe we're setting any precedent along those lines.

The distinction is that under no definition are Gitmo detainees POWs. POWs are not simply any person that has been captured on a battlefield; they are (with a few specific exceptions) captured soldiers who were fighting openly as soldiers in a military or organized militia. Gitmo detainees are guerrillas, terrorists, and often just plain civilians, none of which are afforded POW status. They all deserve Geneva Convention rights as non-POWs, but those rights don't extend much further than 'humane treatment.' They also deserve any and all rights that United States law affords them; that includes the right to not be tortured, the right to challenge their detention in court, the right to view all evidence against them, etc., etc.

If our soldiers are captured by another nation, it is likely that they will be treated humanely as POWs and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, because the foreign nation would likely prefer that we do the same to their prisoners. Nations don't obey the Geneva Conventions in war because they feel an obligation to follow legal precedents, they do so to protect their citizens being held by foreign nations from reciprocal mistreatment. If your situation were to play out, then it's likely that the captor nation did so not because America didn't grant POW status to non-POWs, but rather because they felt there was some political or military benefit to doing so that would outweigh the danger of America reciprocating.

[Thickasabrick]

18. We dropped thousands of fliers encourgaging people to sell out their

neighbors or mothers. I'm surprised we don't have grandmothers locked up.

[rug]

22. How would we know?

[Thickasabrick]

31. Good point eom

[Richard Steele]

30. Complete and utter codswollop. nm