Guantánamo Bay

[Kuciwalker]

I would NOT advise debating MtG on the fine points of law

[Lefty Scaevola]

The problem with this question is that it is not fine points. A few sentences to broadly cover what needed a few pages to define. A big broad ultra wide blunt point of law. and it is not as if thoses who wrote it were unable to anticipate that goverment would try to drive a mechanized brigade through loopholes of this size.

[DinoDoc]

There is obviously nothing new under the sun considering the fact this must be the fourth time this topic has come up.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
That is the official position, but one not very statisfying to many lawyers outside the Goverment. However, i do not see an effective method to challenge it. As noted, the law on the subject is VERY vague, although I very much doubt that any covention delegates, or bodies that ratified it, ever imagined that a single political appointee, rather than a group of judicial officers, would be the tribunal.

I think the technical details are that the initial recommendation of status was made by officers in charge of the interrogation and initial processing of these prisoners, and then it got kicked up to Rummy for rubberstamping, so he's not the sole approval.

I don't find it to be a satisfying solution in general, but I can't get too worked up in these cases - we have people clearly not part of a regular force or organized militia, members of two groups who did not openly carry arms, wear distinguishing markings visible at a distance, and which did not and do not adhere to the laws and customs of war.

Treating Afghan members of the Taleban in their normal uniforms (black turbans) and the large body of Pakistani volunteers who were also "uniformed" Taleban as unlawful combatants on a wholesale basis would be unacceptable, IMO. But irregular and foreign Taleban who engaged in guerilla operations, and members of al Qaeda conducted themselves so far out of the norms of lawful combatants that I don't have a problem with the results so far.

In WW2, Skorzeny's Einheits Stielau prisoners captured by the US were treated to very quick trials before tribunals of three officers, one of which had to be in field grade - the standard that applied at the time. They were taken in US uniform as infiltrators, there really was no defense, and they had trials one day and executions a few days later. No wasted energy or BS. The Genevan Convention for POWs grew out of the military law context that applied in the field in WW2, so I don't see that it would be exceptionally tough to implement something similar.

I think procedural treatment should follow the Manual for Courts Martial and criminal law (and penalties) should follow the UCMJ for these people - I really don't get what Rumsfeld and Ashcroft think they have to gain by talking about (but taking no real action) on creating special tribunals with special one-off procedural rules.

And you're right - it's not fine points at all. I'd have to suspect, absent any other explanation, that the language as to what constitutes a proper tribunal for status and other purposes deliberately did not impose any specific requirement so as to get the greatest number of governments, including many non-savory governments, to ratify the convention.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There is obviously nothing new under the sun considering the fact this must be the fourth time this topic has come up.

There's never anything new under the sun.

[Alexander's Horse]

It's illegal, it's immoral, it's shameful, it's counter productive and one day a future President is probably going to have to apologise about it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
It's illegal, it's immoral, it's shameful, it's counter productive and one day a future President is probably going to have to apologise about it.

It might be the fourth thing, but then I'm all for trying and shooting them.

[DinoDoc]

it's immoral,

Your point is?

[Alexander's Horse]

oh yeah I forgot to mention - it's just plain dumb.

[Ned]

I think this question ought to be put to Dean, Clark, et al., to find out what they would do.

[oedo]

at least they could set the innocents free, before.....

[oedo]

....oh, and the children of course, as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2978661.stm

[MichaeltheGreat]

You mean by "children" the younger *******s carrying weapons and fighting in an unlawful combatant organization?

The ones that wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger on their Kalashnikovs and sending your infidel asses to meet your Maker? These weren't exactly your average schoolkids.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I think this question ought to be put to Dean, Clark, et al., to find out what they would do.

I agree, but I think Dean already spoke on this between his retirement and his announcing as a candidate. IIRC, basic blurb about applying standard military law and procedures.

[oedo]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You mean by "children" the younger *******s carrying weapons and fighting in an unlawful combatant organization?

The ones that wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger on their Kalashnikovs and sending your infidel asses to meet your Maker? These weren't exactly your average schoolkids.

everyone has to be considered as an innocent as long his guilt hasn´t been proven. I thought you know that, MtG. these children (and all the other inmates as well) haven´t been even accused, yet.