Are the folk in Gitmo guilty or innocent?

[Drake Tungsten]

Isn't Carlos the Jackal suing in France so that he can be treated as well as the detainees at Gitmo?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And you need five years to do that?
You need to use a prison that is out of your territory to do that?

Sure, why not.

You need to prevent humanitarian organizations from seeing the treatment of prisoners to do that?

How did the ICRC issue this statement then if we prevented them from seeing the treatment of prisoners.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Isn't Carlos the Jackal suing in France so that he can be treated as well as the detainees at Gitmo?

Carlos the Jackal has done the following:

- He sued the guy who captured him in Sudan
- He appealed against his detention conditions. The court found that these conditions did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.
- He appealed against his life sentence, and the appeal failed.
- He went on a hunger strike to protest against solitary confinement.

I've just browsed the BBC articles, and I haven't seen anything relating to Guantanamo in any of them. And while I find solitary confinement horrible, I'd like to remind that it applies to a convicted murderer. Moussaoui will face the same punishment in the US (despite not having murdered anybody).

Things like "trial", "appeal", "sentence", "lawyer", "press-related hunger strike" are completely alien concepts to the Gitmo detainees.


Edit: besides, the "solitary confinement" seems to be a relative word over here. The guy can read books as he wishes, and he seems to have an intense enough relationship with his lawyer that he married her.

[lord of the mark]

let me clarify, that when I state that they were at least taliban footsoldiers, I DO NOT avow that that is all they were. There were many more captured in Afghanistan who were never sent to Gitmo. Clearly the military judged that these guys were different - either at least somewhat higher up, or they were foreigners who came to Afghanistan to support the Taliban - IOW they were Al Qaeeda. Now Al Qaeeda, like the SS, had guys who just fought as ground troops, as well as guys who did "other stuff". My calling them only foot soldiers is a statements wrt how dangerous they PROBABLY are now, NOT a statement about their legal status.


Let me further say, that while I think the time for Gitmo has passed, there are clearly many who would take its closure as admission of all kinds of accusations. That does not make it easier to close it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


And you can't interrogate people in other conditions? What do you do with all those criminals etc.....

They arent, generally speaking, trained in counter interrogation techniques, as AQ are, and are generally interrogated to solve a past crime, not to prevent a future act of war. Obviously there are gray areas - organized crime is SOMEWHAT more like AQ in this respect, and there are tradeoffs. It might be more effective to interrogate mafia in these conditions, but since they are caught on US soil, they (like terrorists caught on US soil) are extended protections not extended to those caught on a field of battle overseas.

[Vesayen]

Most are innocent of ANY crime except fighting America.

Most commited no war crimes.

The war in Afghanistan is over, they are prisoners of war, they should be repatriated.

I have said recently(and often) on Apolyton that the U.N. is full of ####. The geneva conventions are one of the longest standing and most respected(compared to others) agreements in the international community and close to being on the same level of respect as the actual law of a state.

Keeping a bunch of foot soldiers in jail for all this time serves us no advantage-how could it? We are not supposed to interegate them either.... oh wait, we've admitted to doing that.

When we #### up big time in our legal system the defendant usually goes scot free. Repatriate every person in Gitmo from Afghanistan and Iraq.


People say we don't have to repatriate till "the war" is over and since "the war on terror" is a global conflict.... I would point these gullible morons or idealogues towards a labotomy.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Sikander
Who cares about guilt or innocence? They aren't being held because we know they committed crimes, they are being held because we are in a war with them and their ilk. We must either hold them until such time as their war with us is over or they pose no threat. The alternative is execution for the lot.

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq is over.

The "global war on terror" is *NOT* a war. We made no declaration and wars can only be waged on countries.

[lord of the mark]

spiff, you quote the 4th gen conv, which applies to occupying powers. Is the US legally considered an occupying power in Afghanistan?

[Vesayen]

The U.S. is no longer an occupying power. They are a fully functioning and soon to be, Islamic republic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
spiff, you quote the 4th gen conv, which applies to occupying powers. Is the US legally considered an occupying power in Afghanistan?

I'm quoting the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (dunno which number it is)

It also applies to occupying powers (art 2). Not exclusively to them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sure, why not.

Things like human rights, due process of the law, and things like that.

I also fail to imagine what information can be gained 5 years after they've been arrested. Things have changed quite a bit in the meantime, and I would imagine these prisoners have been left out of the loop quite a bit

[lord of the mark]

"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, withou"


Under the 3rd convention there is a definition of "members of armed forces" which the admin has consistently argued the prisoners held in Gitmo did not meet. Most of the subsequent debate has concerned the exact proceedures for determining who is a "member of armed forces" and thus entitled to POW protections, and who is not, and is thus an illegal combatant, not protected by 3rd Geneva.

[DinoDoc]

What does length of time held or location of the camp have to do with human rights, due process of the law, and things like that? I'm also kind of curious of your response to the 2nd part of that post.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Things like human rights, due process of the law, and things like that.

I also fail to imagine what information can be gained 5 years after they've been arrested. Things have changed quite a bit in the meantime, and I would imagine these prisoners have been left out of the loop quite a bit

We hold prisoner Y. Then, years later we capture prisoner X. Prisoner X says certain things, which we go back to prisoner Y to verify, etc.


I would suspect that the value of the info is diminishing however, and as a matter of strategy its not worth keeping them for. But I do not believe that no further intell gathering is taking place.

[Vesayen]

It is a breach of the Geneva Convention to interogate them in ANY WAY.