Red Cross: Torture at Gitmo

[Ramo]

Another at confusing the Times of London with the Guardian.

Incidentally, I don't think I've posted a Guardian article in a long, long time. I'd be curious to see all of these Guardian articles that I've recently been reprinting.

And for clarification, the initial article of this thread was taken from the New York Times. Also, not the same thing as the Guardian.

[notyoueither]

The FBI is an unreliable source?

[Ramo]

Of course. So is the CIA. They're all in league with the radical firebrands that make up the Times of London to bring down the US government.

[laurentius]

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva

from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

entry into force 21 October 1950

I just read through the entire Geneva Convention and following articles cought my attention.

Regarding who is a POW and whos not the Geneva convention is pretty specific:

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.

Therefore, the so-called "Enemy Combatant" is not a valid legal term and actually refers to someone who should have a POW status. Period.

Article 7

Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

This is why the whole Guantanamo is not just completely illegal but in stark contrast with the convention.

The Geneva Convention, about torture:

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 17
....

....

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
.....

Article 87

Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will. The said courts or authorities shall be at liberty to reduce the penalty provided for the violation of which the prisoner of war is accused, and shall therefore not be bound to apply the minimum penalty prescribed.

Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.


Article 89

The disciplinary punishments applicable to prisoners of war are the following:
.....
.....
.....

4. Confinement.

.....

In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war.

Article 130

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by laurentius
Therefore, the so-called "Enemy Combatant" is not a valid legal term and actually refers to someone who should have a POW status. Period.

You've laid out a fairly convincing case for the Taliban fighters but I fail to see anything that covers the Al Qaeda fighters.

[laurentius]

Well you know DinoDoc tecnically the so-called "War on Terror" is not a war at all. Ok, the part that took place in Afghanistan was a war but anything else is just an international police operation. Therefore the Al-Qaeda operatives are not "fighters" at all but something very different. Criminals, perhaps. And there are different laws used in civil justice. The alledged Al-Qaeda operatives should not be in Gitmo in te first place. They should be given fair trial in their own countries or at least in some civil court somewhere.

[laurentius]

You know perhaps you should try them in Afghanistan with Taliban laws since thats where they were captured and those were at the time the effective laws of Afghanistan

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So people demand that we release people at Gitmo and we return them to the country which they are citizens of and people still aren't happy? Some of you people will never be happy and will whine about everything. All without any evidence that people are being systemitically mistreated.

This "la la la," cover-your-ears, I-can't-hear-you routine is old. Just admit you'll never accept that there's torture going on, no matter how much evidence is presented.

I don't want the Gitmo prisoners released out of hand. I want them to stop torturing prisoners, first. Then I want to see fair trials for them, since only 4 out of 550 have actually even been charged with anything. And then let justice be dispensed.

But beating the **** out of them isn't doing anything but engendering more animosity to the U.S. every day.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

Ramo: How does the law you linked to define the term?

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

Sure seems to fit.

By that definition, simply having the death penalty for murder tortures everyone in the US into not killing people

[Ramo]

That's an absurd interpretation. And the Courts certainly haven't intepreted the law (and it is the law) that way.

[Ramo]

Specifically, executing people doesn't threaten anyone with imminent death.

[Kuciwalker]

(C) the threat of imminent death;

It's absurd to interpret that as meaning you can't threaten to kill people if they don't comply?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

(C) the threat of imminent death;

It's absurd to interpret that as meaning you can't threaten to kill people if they don't comply?

No it isn't. That's what it says. The DP, in the U.S., is not an imminent threat of death. There is this little thing called due process which has to take place first.

[Kuciwalker]

OK. Well, I guess we can't shoot escaping prisoners then, else they'd be tortured into staying.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


This "la la la," cover-your-ears, I-can't-hear-you routine is old. Just admit you'll never accept that there's torture going on, no matter how much evidence is presented.

I don't want the Gitmo prisoners released out of hand. I want them to stop torturing prisoners, first. Then I want to see fair trials for them, since only 4 out of 550 have actually even been charged with anything. And then let justice be dispensed.

But beating the **** out of them isn't doing anything but engendering more animosity to the U.S. every day.

Boris.

-Arrian