Guantanamo bay

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Military tribunals work through chain of command. Assimilating civilian DoD lawyers and Navy/USAF JAG lawyers into an Army tribunal is a pain in the ass, and accomplishes no specific purpose. And if you do it your way, you have to make a separate determination as to the status of al Qaeda or Taleban or whoever, as a combatant organization for each individual, in addition to then determining the status of those individuals. That's ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. It's what insures some semblance of individual attention and decision-making for each prisoner.

Doooooodooooodooooodoooooh... we enter... the KrazyHorse zone. The US administration, more specifically, the office of the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, is the convening authority for the tribunal.

And? It's a kangaroo court if the admin is allowed free reign as to what standards the board will apply. Having the Prez alone decide which were which would have been laughed out on its face. Instead he bootstrapped himself to get what he wants.

And so prejudicial that the same panel of legal experts ruled that the Taleban was a lawful combatant organization, as an organized irregular militia of a combatant party, despite it's loose to non-existant structure in the field, it's laxity of uniforms, concealment of weapons, propensity for being lax with the laws and customs of land warfare, and the lack of legitimacy of the Taleban as a "government." IF this panel had been prejudiced in any way, they could have easily taken a "hang 'em all" approach, but did not. Not wrt distinguishing the status of the Taleban and al Qaeda, and not wrt the status of indivuduals, most of whom, even the al Qaeda, "Afghan Arabs," and volunteer Pakistani jihadi, were never transferred to Gitmo.

I'm quite sure that some of the Taliban should not have been considered POWs. But that's the problem when you've got one panel of legal experts drawing up exactly two categories to deal with a couple of thousand prisoners from diferent situations, and then another panel dropping the prisoners into those two categories...

Each case merited individual review. They didn't get a sufficient amount of it. Given the amount of manpower that the US has applied to Gitmo to keep the prisoners so far, I'm sure they could have spared a ten man panel of lawyers for a month or two.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And by the way, in case somebody thinks I'm US-bashing here, I hold my government as culpable as that of the US for turning over prisoners to the US prior to their treatment as POWs being guaranteed...

The principle reason for not classing al Qaeda *******s as POWs is not triability or conditions of imprisonment. Gitmo meets the minimum standards for EPW confinement - they are fed adequately, they have been seen by representatives of authorized international humanitarian organizations, they receive medical care, and they have a degree of shelter adequate to the climate.

Trial of EPW's for violations of the laws of war is (per the GC) by military tribunal of the detaining power, not civilian or international court.

The principle difference is that POW's can only be questioned as to name, rank, identifying number, and date of birth. If the Canadians or any other power had aided and abetted an unlawful combatant organization and terrorist organization such as al Qaeda by preventing interrogation of it's captured operatives, then I would support the US taking any action against that power necessary to secure those prisoners for interrogation.

[KrazyHorse]

And then you'd have committed an act of war against Canada for obeying the statutes of the Geneva Convention.

[KrazyHorse]

Trial of EPW's for violations of the laws of war is (per the GC) by military tribunal of the detaining power, not civilian or international court

Actually, it's by either military or civilian court (at the discretion of the DP) with (I believe) the caveat that if a member of the DP's military had committed the same crime as the accused and would have been tried in civilian court then the accused should be tried in civilian court.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The principle difference is that POW's can only be questioned as to name, rank, identifying number, and date of birth.

Not true, IIRC. They can be questioned with regards to the crime they are accused of as long as they are granted the same protections as would be offered a member of the DP's own military.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's not ridiculous. It's what insures some semblance of individual attention and decision-making for each prisoner.

It's ridiculous (and your courts don't do it, nobody does) to take the exact same set of facts (al Qaeda as an organization in Afghanistan), and the exact same set of law, and make thousands of independent determinations of the law. What do you want? Al Qaeda is a lawful combatant organization here, but an unlawful one there? The legal status of al Qaeda as a combatant force in Afghanistan is a single factual and legal issue. The findings on that issue were made by a DoD legal team, not JAG judges, but international and military law experts, charged with making that determination under existing law.

Once that hurdle was cleared, wrt each combatant organization, the purpose of the tribunal is to then determine the status of each individual case brought before it.

Doooooodooooodooooodoooooh... we enter... the KrazyHorse zone. The US administration, more specifically, the office of the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, is the convening authority for the tribunal.

And? It's a kangaroo court if the admin is allowed free reign as to what standards the board will apply. Having the Prez alone decide which were which would have been laughed out on its face. Instead he bootstrapped himself to get what he wants.

The President did not make any such determination. Bush may be a lot of things (and I'm no fan), but he's not a micromanager, nor has he shown any evidence of deluding himself as being an expert on military law. The orders went down through Rummy to a legal panel to make a determination as to the status of each organization, the panel made their determination (i.e. al Qaeda not a lawful combatant party, or organization or unit of one, but Taleban a lawful combatant party), reported it up the chain of command, where it was endorsed and approved.

The only standards "applied" were applied by a panel of legal experts.

And so prejudicial that the same panel of legal experts ruled that the Taleban was a lawful combatant organization, as an organized irregular militia of a combatant party, despite it's loose to non-existant structure in the field, it's laxity of uniforms, concealment of weapons, propensity for being lax with the laws and customs of land warfare, and the lack of legitimacy of the Taleban as a "government." IF this panel had been prejudiced in any way, they could have easily taken a "hang 'em all" approach, but did not. Not wrt distinguishing the status of the Taleban and al Qaeda, and not wrt the status of indivuduals, most of whom, even the al Qaeda, "Afghan Arabs," and volunteer Pakistani jihadi, were never transferred to Gitmo.

I'm quite sure that some of the Taliban should not have been considered POWs. But that's the problem when you've got one panel of legal experts drawing up exactly two categories to deal with a couple of thousand prisoners from diferent situations, and then another panel dropping the prisoners into those two categories...

You're misunderstanding the process completely. Classification of the Taleban as a recognized combatant simply means that some of the tests under Section 4 of the GC have been satisfied, by virtue of the nature of the organization. It is then, that individual cases are considered, so for example, a saboteur who is a member of Taleban, captured without carrying arms openly and without identifying markings viewable at a distance, would not qualify for being a POW. However, an unarmed member of the Taleban, taken out of uniform, would be presumptively a POW.

An al Qaeda member, however, would not be a POW, simply because the nature of the organization and it's recognized right to be there fighting made it an unlawful combatant power. Same thing would apply with a bunch of white foreign mercenaries in Africa who operated outside any lawful authority. (a la Mad Mike Hoare's Wild Geese in the Congo)

Each case merited individual review. They didn't get a sufficient amount of it. Given the amount of manpower that the US has applied to Gitmo to keep the prisoners so far, I'm sure they could have spared a ten man panel of lawyers for a month or two.

They spared far more, in identifying these people, conducting interrogations, etc. The tribunals were a conclusion at the end of a long evidentiary process. How do you think it is that we managed to decide that some 98% of prisoners processed did NOT warrant continued detention and transfer to Gitmo?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And then you'd have committed an act of war against Canada for obeying the statutes of the Geneva Convention.

We're the ones who've obeyed it. If (in your hypothetical) Canada shielded unlawful combatants from interrogation, that is neither required nor sanctioned by the Geneva Convention.

And if Canada gets in our way, TFB. You have enough gold, gas and hydropower to be worth the trouble.

[KrazyHorse]

We're the ones who've obeyed it. If (in your hypothetical) Canada shielded unlawful combatants from interrogation, that is neither required nor sanctioned by the Geneva Convention.

According to you they're unlawful combatants. You're going in circles here...

And if Canada gets in our way, TFB. You have enough gold, gas and hydropower to be worth the trouble.

Don't bite off more than you can chew...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not true, IIRC. They can be questioned with regards to the crime they are accused of as long as they are granted the same protections as would be offered a member of the DP's own military.

Irrelevant. That's after a formal tribunal commences, after the EPW has been charged, and the subject of the questioning is limited solely to the crime charged, so you can't conduct questioning as to general capabilities, operations, future plans or activities, etc. - in other words, all the stuff of intel value for the conduct of a war against the organization.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, there were serious questions in Parliament when it was determined that our forces had turned over prisoners captured in battle to US forces.

So it's more than just a hypothetical from a lone leftist...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We're the ones who've obeyed it. If (in your hypothetical) Canada shielded unlawful combatants from interrogation, that is neither required nor sanctioned by the Geneva Convention.

And if Canada gets in our way, TFB. You have enough gold, gas and hydropower to be worth the trouble.

...and they got mad at my "no permanent friends, only permanent interests" quote.

this should be fun.

[KrazyHorse]

You've been threatening it for 228 years. We stopped taking you seriously sometime around 1860...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

We're the ones who've obeyed it. If (in your hypothetical) Canada shielded unlawful combatants from interrogation, that is neither required nor sanctioned by the Geneva Convention.

According to you they're unlawful combatants. You're going in circles here...

And if Canada gets in our way, TFB. You have enough gold, gas and hydropower to be worth the trouble.

Don't bite off more than you can chew...

What circles? Al Qaeda was determined by a combatant power (and a high contracting party to the GC) to not be a lawful combatant power. Therefore, al Qaeda members are not subject to protection of the GC. A party shielding unlawful combatants from interrogation is not doing so under the GC's authority, unless you wanted to set up your own competing tribunal, and show you were a combatant party.

As far as "more than we can chew"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
BTW, there were serious questions in Parliament when it was determined that our forces had turned over prisoners captured in battle to US forces.

So it's more than just a hypothetical from a lone leftist...

I'm not surprised, but then, look at your Parliament.

[KrazyHorse]

What circles? Al Qaeda was determined by a combatant power (and a high contracting party to the GC) to not be a lawful combatant power. Therefore, al Qaeda members are not subject to protection of the GC. A party shielding unlawful combatants from interrogation is not doing so under the GC's authority, unless you wanted to set up your own competing tribunal, and show you were a combatant party.

It was determined by one CP. We were the DP, and a CP to the GC. And since possession is what it is, the GC quite clearly states that it is the DP who is responsible for the treatment of prisoners. Which makes its determination the most important one.