Answer to the EC?-thread; Guantanamo Bay detainees - status?

[TheHammer]

This thread is started because of a discussion that took place recently on the "European Constitution?" thread: https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,9457.0.html

To put it all in context: Some folks and me were talking about the pros and cons of the Constitution, when we came to speak of the international role a stronger and unified Europe could play, expecially in opposition to the USA. This naturally provoked contradiction by some PF members, mainly Musik_Man. He claimed critics of the USA to be unfair, and considering the world-wide classification of GB-camp as violating international war (and of these mainly the Geneva Convention), he answered that the camp and the treatment of the prisoners was completely legal and fulfilled if not surpassed all requirements. To this statement (EC-thread, replies #36, #40, #42, #44) I want now to answer in a little more detailed way...

As said, USA claims to fulfill if not surpass all requirements made by international law or conventions. The position of USA can be read here:
https://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/d20040406gua.pdf

It states:
"Detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not an act of punishment. It is a matter of security and military necessity. It prevents enemy combatants from continuing to fight against the U.S. and its partners in the war on terror. Releasing enemy combatants before the end of the hostilities and allowing them to rejoin the fight would only prolong the conflict and endanger coalition forces and innocent civilians.

There is no requirement in the law of armed conflict that a detaining power charge enemy combatants with crimes, or give them lawyers or access to the courts in order to challenge their detention. States in prior wars have generally not done so.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 accords POW status only to enemy forces who
follow certain rules: wear uniforms; do not deliberately target civilians; and otherwise
fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Qaida and the Taliban militia did not follow these rules because, as groups, they
systematically and deliberately have attacked innocent civilians and they do not wear
clothing that distinguishes them from civilians. Additionally al Qaida is not a party to the Geneva Convention and has no right under international law to wage war. Accordingly, the U.S. is under no obligation to grant al Qaida and Taliban forces POW status and did not do so."

Which is all the same Musik_Man's position.

I want now to prove these claims wrong, by referring to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and of them mainly the "Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War" (https://www.ohchr.org/english/law/prisonerwar.htm) and the "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (https://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm)".
One other thing: USA signed the Geneva Convention, but not its Additional Protocols (!!!) of 1977, so we can only speak about the main Convention. Afghanistan signed too. America, with its bombing of Afghanistan military structures and cities has initiated war on Afghanistan, so that the Convention apllies to this conflict. The same is true for Iraq. A problem is, that most detainees are considered "terrorists", members of the Al-Qaida. It is not clear to me how an organization can wage war against the USA. Therefore, Al-Qaida-members would have to be treated as civilians. But that we will see below.

Well...
I think we can spare the first paragraph of the US position. It merely states that detaining enemy combatants is of military necessity. If it's illegal, then the USA would still have to release the detainees. So we have to clear several questions, but the most important one: What status, after International Law, do these prisoners have?

For this, look at the third paragraph: Here the USA says, POW status is only permitted to those who: "wear uniforms; do not deliberately target civilians; and otherwise fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
Whereas the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of POW has this requirements:

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.


Okay. We can easily perceive: no word of an uniform. The USA is lying on this point or doesn't know better. The definition of the USA only seems to refer to the second point, whereas there are six (in section A). Guantanamo detainees either apply to point 1, 2, or 3. Only point 2 states that they will lose their POW-status when violating international law (by killing civillians for example). On the other hand, ignoring the Geneva Convention of one country part of the conflict may lead to ignoring it by the other party. Since Al-Qaida was never part of the convention, it can't be excelled, whereas the Taliban regime and the sovereign state of Afghanistan were. Taliban was  never proven to be comitting war crimes or the like, and even if they were, it was never announced by the USA publicly and within the conflict of 2001, that they would ignore Geneva because the Taliban did so before. Therefore, soldiers and memers of the Taliban armed forces apply to the Geneva Convention. Al Qaida members do not.

However, even IF Afghanistan combatans have violated the Geneva, this would have to be proven:
Article 5:
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.

A tribunal. NOT by the US president, the DOD, the military leadership. The USA have acted grossly false in injustly denying them the POW status. Until this questions is cleared, they have the rights any POW has. Read the Convention for these rights, at least a dozen have been violated in the treatment of the prisoners (and from that point of view, Musik_Man, Pres. Bush is a war criminal, and therefore only a small inch better than the dictators we spoke of). These detainees are only SUSPECTS. The USA is probably detaining several INNOCENTS in a camp for now 4 1/2 years!!!

However, just assume, the prisoners would have actively violated the Convention (this would have to be researched still!), there is not a word about "illegal combatants" as the USA calls them. This term does not exist in the Convention. It has been made up by the US government.
What the detainees could be, are civillians. Therefore read the Convention relative to the treatment where it states:
Article 5:
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Especially second paragraph. Although one might argue, that (some) Guantamano detainees are a danger to the USA they still have all the rights of this Convention. For the violating of these rights by the USA see article 43:
Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit.

Unless the protected persons concerned object, the Detaining Power shall, as rapidly as possible, give the Protecting Power the names of any protected persons who have been interned or subjected to assigned residence, or who have been released from internment or assigned residence. The decisions of the courts or boards mentioned in the first paragraph of the present Article shall also, subject to the same conditions, be notified as rapidly as possible to the Protecting Power.

So either way, if the detainees are POW or civillians, the USA have acted wrongly for over 4 years according to applying international law. This has happened openly, with protest of Human Rights Organizations, the press (one example: the famous article by the NY Times from May 15th, 2003 "The Guantanamo scandal" https://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2003-May/008821.html), other nations (especially EU countries!) and so on and so forth. The US government has not responded in any satisfactorily way. The US judges have (https://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/31/gitmo.ruling/and https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm), and thus contradicted the US president and although only indirectly, accused him of being a war criminal.



So, that was it form my side. I think this thread can easily take up the discussions going on the other thread about American foreing policy, so pleas post HERE. Thank you very much for your time reading.

[Daevren]

This is text from the convention.  The people at Gitmo don't meet the requirements of B and C and are therefore not entitled to be treated as POWs.

Did I ever say they are POW's? This is not the point. The point is wheneter they are 'unlawful combatants' or not. People are detainees with rights of POWs until a 'competent military tribunal' judges that they are 'unlawful combatants'. This way they have a trial. The people in Gitmo don't have trials or access to attorneys or law. This is in violation of the GC. According to GC they should be given POW rights. If war law doesn't apply they are detained crime suspects held on US soil who have been denied the right of a trial.

I don't see how any confusion can arise here.  The convention is quite clear.  Don't just tell me I'm wrong.  Show me what part of the convention proves me wrong.

The conventions aren't 'quite' clear', its really a bit complex. And you probably didn't read the whole doctument accurately enough.

I deny that the US commits systematic torture, as I've yet to see compelling evidence that it does.

Did you read the human rights reports? People in Gitmo are treated so bad they want to commit suicide. I won't type out everything they do in Gitmo as far as I know. Just try to inform yourself. If you fail we can't have a discussion. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported several times on Gitmo.

https://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng
https://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8528
https://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/05/amnesty.detainee/
https://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_gitmo

Show me the evidence and I may change my mind.

The special interrogation treatment in Guantanamo is torture.

-Prisoners are given alot of water but no access to a restroom.
-Lights on 24 hours a day.
-Waking people in the middle of the night, distupting their sleep, making them sleep during the day
-Undressing prisoners while other prisoners are watching
-Solitary prison
-Forced to be in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time
-Put in conditions that create hallicunations; naked in cold air streams, special noises
-Aggressive interrogation with the goal of destorying the prisoner.
-Abru Graib forms of intimidation.

You may not think these things are torture, Gonzales told Bush the same thing in his memos. But this will break a person. I would rather be killed with a clean shot than put in Guantanamo for more than 3 years.

The pictures from Abu Graib do nothing more than to prove that some soldiers, in violation of American policy, abused(not tortured) detainees.

Not many people (outside the US) think these were incidents. I guess you know all the arguments put forward in this discussion but you give your government the benefit of the doubt. I don't. I believe the abuse and intimidation is scematic. Plus, lets not forget that people have been killed in these 'abusive incidents'. When do you consider something torture?

I'd like some real evidence for your charges.  If you can't produce it, then stop slandeering my country.

This is real evidice. If you disagree than that is your problem. Your country is violating human rights, Geneva Conventions and angering the world. Even your closest allies are disgusted by Guantanamo Bay. Blair: "Guantanamo Bay is an anomaly that has at some point got to be brought to an end,"

If Guantanamo happened in my country the people would overthrow the government.

Once again, I'd like to ask for sources on your quotes.

www.google.co.uk

You should actively look for mistakes made by your government. You have the duty to make sure they do their job well so you can vote them out of power if they fail  you. 

For your last bit.  You may think that they are bad reasons, but they still are reasons given by Bush, that contradict your claim that he gave no reasons for this war.

I was talking about official reasons. I said Bush said all kinds of things about the war of Iraq. Most of the official reasons were never clear enough and later proven wrong. But really, do you think that Iraq shooting at a British plane in the no-fly zone is a reason for the US to go war?

If so, I am scared. In that case any country could be next.

The present US administration doesn't represent the US of A in its entirety, so accusing Mr. Bush for this or that doesn't mean that America itself is accused as a country. Those who skillfully blend the two notions seem to me as using a cheap political tool, which is disturbingly close to fascism (Mr.Bush is America? Grin). Many people just think that the USA are misguided at the present point and shoot their complaints at the present government. And that's that.

If this is true than this is a big breach of democracy. I was always doubtful about the democratic content of the US federal government.

You wouldn't call this fascism. Its a kind of massmedia controlled populism. They have a system like that in Italy. There a businessman, owning almost all the mass media became premier. Of course we are talking about Berlusconi.

With the big role and impact of mass media and politicians and multinationals trying to use it to control the consensus of the people this is a problem. The people should control the government, not the other way around.

[BoliverAllmon]

The special interrogation treatment in Guantanamo is torture.

-Prisoners are given alot of water but no access to a restroom.
-Lights on 24 hours a day.
-Waking people in the middle of the night, distupting their sleep, making them sleep during the day
-Undressing prisoners while other prisoners are watching
-Solitary prison
-Forced to be in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time
-Put in conditions that create hallicunations; naked in cold air streams, special noises
-Aggressive interrogation with the goal of destorying the prisoner.
-Abru Graib forms of intimidation.

You may not think these things are torture, Gonzales told Bush the same thing in his memos. But this will break a person. I would rather be killed with a clean shot than put in Guantanamo for more than 3 years.



then what is proper interrogation techniques? these detainees are living a life that is better than most of our miliatary personel in Iraq. These detainees don't have to worry about getting there head chopped off, mutilated or anything of the such. Our soldiers on the other hand do have this luming over them every day.

boliver

[TheHammer]

then what is proper interrogation techniques? these detainees are living a life that is better than most of our miliatary personel in Iraq. These detainees don't have to worry about getting there head chopped off, mutilated or anything of the such. Our soldiers on the other hand do have this luming over them every day.

boliver

They aren't even allowed to be interrogated by international law. They are only supposed to say there name and their ID (if at all...). Nothing else. And seriously, 24 hours light the day, hallucinations, intimidation? This is proper interrogation for you? I don't think so, and that they don't have to worry about their head chopped off...well, if that's the standard US military or justice is at ...

[Daevren]

Some are suffering so bad they would love to have their heads chopped off.
One fifth of them in on prozac.


Plus, most of these people are just normal people from Afghanistan with probably a few people that have links with the Taliban, the 'official government of Afghanistan at that time, or Al-Qaeda. What do they have to do with people chopping heads of other people in Iraq?

Is it justified for the US to treat everyone they want almost as bad as some rebels in Iraq? Maybe you think its justified. But then alot of people will think that the US isn't any better than those people in Iraq or Al Qaeda. Why should Europe want the US as an ally?

[BoliverAllmon]

Some are suffering so bad they would love to have their heads chopped off.
One fifth of them in on prozac.


Plus, most of these people are just normal people from Afghanistan with probably a few people that have links with the Taliban, the 'official government of Afghanistan at that time, or Al-Qaeda. What do they have to do with people chopping heads of other people in Iraq?

Is it justified for the US to treat everyone they want almost as bad as some rebels in Iraq? Maybe you think its justified. But then alot of people will think that the US isn't any better than those people in Iraq or Al Qaeda. Why should Europe want the US as an ally?

why the ally? HMMMM........resources, trade, power, HMMMM.......

[musik_man]

Sheesh, I get to argue with half the forum.   So I apologize if I miss some parts of your points, as I've got alot of text to respond to.  I'll start with Hammer's post.

The US isn't lying about uniforms.

( b ) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

One needs a distinguishing mark to qualify for POW status.  It could be a red armband, a funny hat, etc...  But the detainees at Gitmo didn't have anything like that.  In fact they deliberately did not distinguish themselves from the civilian population.

Additionally, those interned at Gitmo do not qualify under 1 or 3 because, lacking uniform, they aren't fighting as an army or militia.

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.

You ignored this part of the statement which is quite important.  If the US captures you in a battle and you are armed and out of uniform, there is no doubt to your status; therefore, no need for a tribunal.

You're right when you say that the convention never uses the term illegal combatants.  I don't believe I or Bush ever said it did.  What the conventions do show, is that the detainees are neither civlians or POW's and therefore are not covered by the convention.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

People at Gitmo were taking active part in the hostilities against the US and therefore do not qualify as civilians.

Article 5:
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

This is not applicable to people caught taking active part in hostilities (ie shooting a gun at US forces.)  This would apply if the US breaks into someone's house and arrests them because they are suspected in taking part of terrorist actions in Iraq.  In that case they would need to be given a fair trial.  If you show me that the US is not giving a fair trial to people such as I described, I'll condemn those actions.

So either way, if the detainees are POW or civillians, the USA have acted wrongly for over 4 years according to applying international law. This has happened openly, with protest of Human Rights Organizations, the press (one example: the famous article by the NY Times from May 15th, 2003 "The Guantanamo scandal" https://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2003-May/008821.html), other nations (especially EU countries!) and so on and so forth. The US government has not responded in any satisfactorily way. The US judges have (https://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/31/gitmo.ruling/and https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm), and thus contradicted the US president and although only indirectly, accused him of being a war criminal.

Detainees at Gitmo are neither POWs nor civilians and therefore have absolutely no rights under the Geneva convention.  The US is not violating international law.



Daevren, as I said in response to TheHammer, you are only entitled to a tribunal to determine your status, if there is a reasonable doubt to what your status is.  There is no doubt to the status of people at Gitmo and therefore they are not entitled to a tribunal.  And as I said, show me what part of the document proves me wrong.  If you don't have the time or the will to do this, you shouldn't be taking part in this arguement.

On the 4 articles you linked to:  Two of these were simply news reports about Amnesty's report on the US.  The report in which they call Gitmo the "Gulag of our time."  As I said earlier, use of this analogy shows extreme lack of judgement and leads me to think that Amnesty's report is more concerned with scoring a cheap partisan point than with uncovering human rights abuses.  The director of AI admitted in an interview on Fox News that he had no evidence for the comparison, but that he made it to get publicity and donations.

  Nevertheless, Mr. Schulz didn't retract Mrs. Khan's words. "Clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy," he told host Chris Wallace. Rather, he insisted that America's "archipelago of prisons throughout the world" are "similar in character, if not in size" to the real deal. "The whole point," he said, is that "we don't know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo." Apparently, he thinks it's better to err on the side of ridiculous assertions.
  from the interview. Mr. Schulz said: "Chris, I don't think I'd be on this station, on this program today with you if Amnesty hadn't said what it said and President Bush and his colleagues haven't [sic] responded as they did. If I had come to you two weeks ago and said, 'Chris, I'd like to go on Fox with you to talk about U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo and elsewhere,' I suspect you wouldn't have given me an invitation." To which Mr. Wallace, no dummy journalist, responded, "So you're saying if you make irresponsible charges, that's good for your cause?"
    Mr. Schulz deflected the question, but the answer he was looking for is yes. According to The Washington Post, in the past week "traffic on Amnesty's Web site has gone up sixfold, donations have quintupled and new memberships have doubled." In the world of Bush-bashing activism, unsubstantiated charges directed at the U.S. government -- preferably the military -- is good for business.

AI also recommends that foreign countries arrest senior US officials and place them on trial for war crimes.(Note that doing this would be an act of war against the US)  It doesn't make the same request of foreign governments regarding leaders of Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea or other actual absusers of human rights.  Face it, AI is neck deep in anti-Americanism and is not anywhere near a fair or impartial source.

The other two links brought me to ~100 page long reports.  I don't have the time to sift through these and point out every error, so if you'd quote the sections you think most relevant, we can debate those.

The special interrogation treatment in Guantanamo is torture.

-Prisoners are given alot of water but no access to a restroom.
-Lights on 24 hours a day.
-Waking people in the middle of the night, distupting their sleep, making them sleep during the day
-Undressing prisoners while other prisoners are watching
-Solitary prison
-Forced to be in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time
-Put in conditions that create hallicunations; naked in cold air streams, special noises
-Aggressive interrogation with the goal of destorying the prisoner.
-Abru Graib forms of intimidation.

You may not think these things are torture, Gonzales told Bush the same thing in his memos. But this will break a person. I would rather be killed with a clean shot than put in Guantanamo for more than 3 years.

Evidence does not mean that you tell me that torture is happening.  Give me evidence that these charges are true, and not in the form of links to 100 page reports that you probably haven't even read yourself.

Not many people (outside the US) think these were incidents. I guess you know all the arguments put forward in this discussion but you give your government the benefit of the doubt. I don't. I believe the abuse and intimidation is scematic. Plus, lets not forget that people have been killed in these 'abusive incidents'. When do you consider something torture?

I presume that my government is innocent until it is proven guilty.  You haven't done that.  And nobody was killed or tortured in the incidents recorded by the Abu Graib photos.  Being forced into a naked human pyramid =/= torture.

This is real evidice. If you disagree than that is your problem. Your country is violating human rights, Geneva Conventions and angering the world. Even your closest allies are disgusted by Guantanamo Bay. Blair: "Guantanamo Bay is an anomaly that has at some point got to be brought to an end,"

Until now you hadn't provided any evidence for your charges of torture.  I could care less about what Blair thinks.  Why does everyone respond to my arguements by saying that Supreme Court/Tony Blair/ a Federal Judge agrees with them.  None of them are participants in this discussion, so why do their opinions matter?

And don't just link me to google.  You're the one making the charges against the US.  It is your responsibility to provide good evidence to back up the charges.  If you don't then I'm just going to ignore your attacks on America.

How is firing on US aircraft not an act of war?  Attacking sombody's armed forces is biggest act of war one could commit. 

Regulus, I'd like to thank you for comparing my tactics to those of a facist.  We needed that sort of helpful discussion. 

We are debating the actions of the government of the USA and that is why I use the term of America.

[contrapunctus]

Before we were unmercifully assaulted on september 11 we follewed all the rules with detainees and the like, but after9/11 we realized that the terrorists were to dangerous to american citizens to be kept like normally POWs. In other words, if they do not treat us nicely we will not treat them nicely. It is all a matter of public safety.

[TheHammer]

OMG, Contrapunctus, that is probably the most stupid response one can make to this problem and it proves all Anti-Americanists right, if they could take you seriously.
The USA have signed this Convention. They are bound to it. If they ignore it because "terrorist are to dangerous ... to be kept like POWs" would make USA war criminals. Public safety is the very last thing such actions would ensure. I will ignore your post in further discussion. It would make things to easy.



Musik_Man: Now we are talking.
First problem: uniforms. Uniform is a much more narrow term than "distinctive sign". It is no way the same. USA said uniforms were necessary for POW status according to GV. It is not. Hence USA is either lying or isn't informed (btw, US special forces do not wear any sign of being a soldier either. If they were to be captured, Bush would certainly demand them to be treated as POWs, wouldn't he?). But that is mere semantics, so leave it at that.
I think there are serious doubts about the status of the detainees, and there should have been from the very beginning. Decisions of several judges show that. I think their opinions matter a lot, they are inherent and important parts of the US constitution. If only the discussion member's opinions matter, than here is mine: I have serious doubts that Guantanamo Bay detainees are "illegal combatants". Please investigate. 
Your points don't on the civilian problem do not (really) convince me. I think it is a matter on reading the GV. Another problem are the circumstances of detaining the combatants. Do you actually know if they were armed at that point? Have a read again at the declaration of the DOD (first post, first link), under point
THOROUGH PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS, it states:
First, in a hostile environment, soldiers detain those who are
posing a threat to U.S. and coalition forces based on available information or direct combat.

So you don't really know that "people in Gitmo were taking active part in hostilities against the US". Your scenario of Us troops breaking into someone's house is only too  imaginable for me (haven't I seen such a scene on TV? Well, don't know for sure, can't prove it, but am pretty sure that this is normal US tactic. Perhaps not. Don't know. Argh...) However, I think we could go on and on so (if you want, do so, I will respond...).
USA is holding 500 people of which they and the world are not sure if they are really guilty for any crime. And this for 4 years. Sorry, even if they have no rights according to international law, this situation has become unbearable. They should charge the detainees as fast as possible. If they are POW, civilians or what ever. This is also concerning USA's reputation in the world, and their moral standards (this, btw, has nothing to do with my opinion that these detainees are treated unlawfully).

Responding to one of pianonuts posts on the other thread, treating your enemies likewise will NOT, in any case, make the Arabic population think any better of you, or make them afraid. It will be best support for the fundamentalist. Pictures of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay are the best means to make a terrorist out of an innocent 15 year old boy. Have you ever even thought about why these people hate the USA so much? Because they are sick or what, because they believe in the false God? No, because of USA past and present policy in this region. The more you do about it, the more they will hate you. But the USA need this region. This war was the most terrible decision they could have ever made. It has destroyed any hope for peace between Middle East and the USA. We will certainly see some war in the next 20 years there. And considering this, holding the Guantanamo detainees will make things only worse. So my 0.02 € 

[gorbee natcase]

I couldn't give a f*** to be honest, I have my own problems

[Daevren]

I don't think saying 'we call them unlawful combatants so that is what they are' is a legal argument. It is not accepted by most.

Its also kind of strange that the american people do not know what is happening in Guantanamo and they don't even want to know.

Face it, AI is neck deep in anti-Americanism and is not anywhere near a fair or impartial source.

I guess this is the whole core of your argument. If its not pro-american, its anti-american so we ignore it.

You should just have to accept that people all over the world 'bash your country'. You heard their arguments as to why they 'bash'.

I presume that my government is innocent until it is proven guilty.

I guess this mentality explains the democratic failure in the US. Power needs to be kept in check. If they start questionable wars and questionable prison camps you need to be right on it to check what they are doing.


Contrapunctus, sad to know there is no good reason for Europeans to support the US.

Sad to know that the US are equal in 'evilness' to people like the ones that behead people in Iraq.

[musik_man]

Firefox froze up when I was opening a pdf file on the DoD web page, so I lost my reply.  I'll rewrite it sometime tommorrow.

[Torp]

Musik_Man,

I'm kind of lost on one point.  How was the the status of the detainees determined?  They are labeled as "enemy combatants" and thus not subject to the GV.  This implies that previous to that "determination" their status must have been "unknown." If their status was unknown they would, by definition, have been subject to the GV.  So, somewhere along the line, this determination had to have been made.  However, the GV says that detemination must be made by a tribunal, doesn't it?

If I follow this argument how could their status have been determined "without" the use of a tribunal, or some other international legal authority.

Uniforms - what international authority has ruled as to whether the detainees were/were not wearing uniforms as determined by the GV?  Or, was the US the sole authority for this determination?  If the US was the sole determiner, which governing body, under international supervision, made that determination?
Insignia - Same questions as above.
Enemy Combatants - What international treaty governs how enemy combatants should be treated?

Why does everyone respond to my arguements by saying that Supreme Court/Tony Blair/ a Federal Judge agrees with them.  None of them are participants in this discussion, so why do their opinions matter?

I am concerned about what this statement implies.  The Supreme Court of the US government is an integral part of the entire concept on which our governement was founded, the balance of power.  If you are taking the position that their "opinions," which are generally promulgated as decisions of law, don't matter I believe this puts any arguments you make about the US government and its "rightness" on extremely tenuous ground.

As far as Tony Blair is concerned, if Tony has reservations about our behavior in all of this we may want to listen.  Afterall, he was, and has been one or our staunchest allies throughout this entire process.  If we are unwilling even to listen to our allies then many of the anti-american statements, unfortunately, begin to ring true with respect to our arrogance and lust for power.

What this implies is that our President no longer cares to listen to world leaders, no longer feels the Supreme Court has any value, no longer feels international treatees apply to him, and has long since stopped listening to 50% of the people he was elected to represent.

You continue to ask people to "provide proof" against our government because our government should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  This concept of law was a major departure from prior concepts that required you to prove your innocence under an assumption of guilt.  However, why should we apply this theory to our government if our own government is not willing to appy that theory to its own prisoners?  The detainees are being held under an assumption of guilt.  Guilt of what, we don't know.  They've never been charged with any crimes.  They're just being held.

Jef