I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[faded glory]

Rumsfeld already said. They are "Unlawful Detainee's" (IE: Foriegn Criminals. Like the Mafia.)

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Lars-E
The U.S is obviously not behaving as a civilised country. Who's surprised? Greatest democracy in the free world. NOT at all. Look to Europe and learn something ABOUT civilization.

You mean:

1)The nazis

2) The spanish inquisition and other new world activities.

3) the french reign of terror

4) the british in ireland, or south arica, or in the sepoy rebellion

5) The Belgians in Africa

I'd go on, but I don't want to turn this into a troll.

Just reminding everyone that civilization aint all its cracked up to be.

[David Floyd]

Are we talking about Al-Queda prisoners or Taliban prisoners? Just curious.

I will say all of this talk about it not mattering what we do to them, etc., is kinda scary...if we can't give even our worst enemies equal protections and such - even if we don't, technically, have to - then what makes us better than them? Worse, who ELSE are we willing to deprive of due process? Maybe next it'll be POWs in general, then maybe violent criminals, down the slippery slope to political dissenters, maybe?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

So they are not PoWs, so they are what? And does this what deserve a free trial? If not, I would be interested to know why.

So much for a war on terrorism...

Um... If they aren't soldiers by any definition, wouldn't killing them be homicide?

They are "unlawful combatants" - meaning they have no legal status or protections. The fact that they aren't covered under the Geneva Convention does not make them civilians, or any other class of person protected under international law.

The Geneva Convention requirement (suitably vague) merely requires a "competent tribunal" meaning one constituted under some portion of the laws or military regulations of the country holding the prisoners - there's no time frame set for that, the only thing is that shooting them, or sentencing them to some confinement below the standards of the Geneva Convention, or hard labor for officers, etc., has to wait until after the tribunal.

Meanwhile, fenced in temporary holding facilities are not a violation of the GC - every army in the field has done that, and the US is building a maximum security prison specifically to house these people.

What should they get in the meantime? Rooms in the ****ing Four Seasons hotel in Miami?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Are we talking about Al-Queda prisoners or Taliban prisoners? Just curious.

Primarily, at least, al-Qaeda prisoners. I don't think the US has made the distinction (yet) between Taleban and al-Qaeda with regard to their combatant status, but these are mostly "special" prisoners handed over by the NA or other allied forces, or who we've captured directly and determined that we should keep, rather than return to local authority. A majority of Taleban have been allowed to just go home, a majority of al Qaeda are imprisoned by the Afghani government. We're holding the cream of the crop, so to speak, but from what I've read, very few of who we're holding are Taleban, and I haven't heard of any non-al Qaeda transferred to Gitmo yet.

I will say all of this talk about it not mattering what we do to them, etc., is kinda scary...if we can't give even our worst enemies equal protections and such - even if we don't, technically, have to - then what makes us better than them?

Technically has nothing to do with it - they have a status under international law as unlawful combatants, nothing in the US Constitution or other US law ever indicated the framer's intent that the protections extended to US residents were intended to be applied to hostile foreigners taken prisoner overseas in wartime. They don't have the legal rights under US or international law that ordinary civilians, or ordinary POW's have. That's not "technical" it's a deliberate exception made in the Geneva Convention.

Meanwhile, we're housing them in temporary facilities, feeding them, allowing them to practice their religion, providing them with Korans, etc. - all in accord with the Geneva Convention, despite some whiners who allege otherwise.

Worse, who ELSE are we willing to deprive of due process? Maybe next it'll be POWs in general, then maybe violent criminals, down the slippery slope to political dissenters, maybe?

Why don't you rephrase that to make it match reality, instead of your ideological prejudice. Eliminate the word "ELSE" because these *******s have NOT been deprived of "due process" and are being treated to a HIGHER STANDARD than they are due under relevant international law.

I know you desperately want to believe the evil Feds are gon' git you for your right-wing views, but it ain't happening, and you can't stretch the more than lawful detention of unlawful combatants from a terrorist organization taken prisoner in a foreign war to unconstitutional interference with the political rights of US citizens.

[David Floyd]

MtG, no I know what you're saying, and I know they have no Constitutional rights that have been violated. It seems to me, though, that we should just hold them as we would either normal prisoners, or POWs, and try them as such. I get bad vibes from terms such as "unlawful combatant" and things of that nature.

And believe me, I don't have rightwing views. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc., have right wing views, and I'm certainly not a big fan of that crowd

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm just hosin' with you. Yeah, Ashcroft in particular, and Rumsfeld to a lesser extent, do worry me with some of their views. More and more, I think Ashcroft is the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell.

The "unlawful combatant" distinction was intended to be a deterrent to warfighting activities which are beyond the bounds of what the GC signatories liked to pretend is "civilized" warfare. Things like terrorism, sabotage, guerilla forces who blend into the civilian populace, quasi-military forces like the SD and Einsatzgruppen in WW2, etc.

The idea was that people who engage in these activities should not have the same legal protection as conventional combatants in uniform who fought under internationally recognized laws and customs of war, but got captured.

[David Floyd]

I'm not sure, though, that a distinction can be made. I certainly don't agree that the Geneva Convention rules can be applied to any non-signatory. That seems utterly ridiculous.

I tend to agree with the quote that "All's fair in love and war" (and I add fighting in there too ).

Not to excuse the WTC attacks - the point, though, is if a nation-state did that, in my opinion it's a valid form of warfare that shouldn't be "punished" any more harshly than any other form.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The Geneva Convention rules obligate signatory nations to extend legal protections to POWs of either signatory or non-signatory nations.

The goal (and general result) is to protect individual POWs and other prisoners not covered under individual agreements.

If a non-signatory power commits acts that don't meet convention standards, they're not "punished" for not abiding by the Geneva convention, but they can be punished by the victorious power for violation of the rules and customs of war, as the Nazis were punished by various military tribunals and special tribunals after the war.

Oh, and the distinction is fairly easy and clear in practice.

[David Floyd]

If a non-signatory power commits acts that don't meet convention standards, they're not "punished" for not abiding by the Geneva convention, but they can be punished by the victorious power for violation of the rules and customs of war, as the Nazis were punished by various military tribunals and special tribunals after the war.

That's my problem. Doing that is punishing a nation or a person for actions that weren't illegal according to the standards that nation or person went by, or was forced to go by. The Nazis in WW2 were only one example - there was no basis for punishing any of the Nazis, as their actions were perfectly legal according to German law, and punishing them is in effect telling them they should have taken another action that could have resulted in their imprisonment or death, which is making a moral judgement for another, when you didn't have to make that same judgement yourself. It's preposterous.

[loinburger]

Three cheers for moral relativism.

[poison_flower]

The only point I would like to make is that we Americans are supposed to set an example of conduct, as are all other nations.
If we treat others like human-beings... theoretically we will be treated the same. Take an example from Shakespeare's, Macbeth. The blood you shed teaches others to shed your blood. Fools who never learn from history, to repeat a cliche, are doomed, in more than one sense, to repeat it.

Also those mother f***ers who have been brain-washed by the term "war on terrorism," it really is best summed up by one word: revenge.

Kiss you blessed golden cow's, Bush's, ass when he gets the whole mother f***ing country blown to bits. I didn't vote for him.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by poison_flower
The only point I would like to make is that we Americans are supposed to set an example of conduct, as are all other nations.
If we treat others like human-beings... theoretically we will be treated the same.

Except of course that's BS. Especially when talking about religious fanatics.

[poison_flower]

BS or not... someone has to have some sort of restraint in this situation, and I have yet to see anything, but an incredible blood-thirst.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by poison_flower
BS or not... someone has to have some sort of restraint in this situation, and I have yet to see anything, but an incredible blood-thirst.

What do you mean, "someone has to have restraint"? Has the US gone and executed the suspected terrorists without a trial or something? I was under the impression that half of the reason we're building a new prison facility is to avoid mob justice from being enacted by other inmates.