Are the folk in Gitmo guilty or innocent?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by 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.

And this debate is diversion by the admin. You'll notice the word "including", which again shows that this sentence is not exclusively about "members of armed forces", but about everybody "taking no active part in the hostilities".

The prisoners at Gitmo have long not taken any active part in the hostility, regardless of their role 5 years ago.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by 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?

Simple: on your territory, you have laws that regulate how prisoners should be treated. The Bus admin chose an extraterritorial jail precisely because these regulations don't apply there.

As for the duration, I do imagine that your country has law(s) regulating how long one can be in custody without being tried. I'd be very surprised that this duration was higher than 5 years, and I'd be very surprised that the duration was "indefinite".

I'm also kind of curious of your response to the 2nd part of that post.

I was wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Simple: on your territory, you have laws that regulate how prisoners should be treated.

I would have assumed that the fact the SCOTUS recently ruled on a case from someone being held at Gitmo would have disabused you of the notion that it is beyond the reach of US law.

As for the duration, I do imagine that your country has law(s) regulating how long one can be in custody without being tried. I'd be very surprised that this duration was higher than 5 years, and I'd be very surprised that the duration was "indefinite".

MtG answered this for me when I asked it earlier in another thread:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Speedy trial protections don't mean that you have to go in a matter of months. The argument (from an appellant unlawful combatant detainee) would be moot anyway if the basic conditions of confinement were consistent with GC standards for PoW detainees, and the appellant wouldn't have been subject to release or parole due to ongoing hostilities. It's a bit different if the alternative to detention is unconditional freedom.

[Spiffor]

I would have assumed that the fact the SCOTUS recently ruled on a case from someone being held at Gitmo would have disabused you of the notion that it is beyond the reach of US law.

Bolded for pertinence. For years, Gitmo was a no-law area, and the location was chosen precisely because it made it a place where the law was ignored. The US might be finally coming to its senses now (as also indicated by the ICRC), but the entire spirit behind keeping the prisoners at Gitmo was to "interrogate" them without any regard for neither domestic nor international law. This was the admin's defense for years, when challenged by legal teams.

[MtG's post

Notice the conditional in MtG's post. The argument "would be moot if the basic conditions of confinement were consistent with GC standards for PoW detainees."

Funny, all this argument about the Geneva convention is precisely because the US argues they aren't PoW. Otherwise, the US would be forced to treat these prisoners in accordance with the Geneva convention, regardless of the prison's location.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And this debate is diversion by the admin. You'll notice the word "including", which again shows that this sentence is not exclusively about "members of armed forces", but about everybody "taking no active part in the hostilities".

The prisoners at Gitmo have long not taken any active part in the hostility, regardless of their role 5 years ago.

I persons taking no active part in hostilities as CIVILIANS. The additional language is to clarify that POWS are included. I see no explicit reference to terrorists.

Theres a reason to extend special protections to properly constituted armed forces. It gives THEM an incentive to act in certain ways. Give everyone the same protections, and you take away those incentives. It seems reasonable to take that into account in interpreting G Conv 3.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And this debate is diversion by the admin.

No, the debate is the criticism of the admin, and the admins response.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Simple: on your territory, you have laws that regulate how prisoners should be treated. The Bus admin chose an extraterritorial jail precisely because these regulations don't apply there.

As for the duration, I do imagine that your country has law(s) regulating how long one can be in custody without being tried. I'd be very surprised that this duration was higher than 5 years, and I'd be very surprised that the duration was "indefinite".


I was wrong.

Of course they apply there. It applies wherever the U.S. goverment holds control. It is just harder to regulate it or to SEE IT if its in one of our bases in cuba.

[lord of the mark]

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. 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, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; "


Im confused. If these provision only apply to the above mentioned persons, who exactly ARE you allowed to inflict outrages upon personal dignity, humiliating, and degrading treatment upon? Certainly not soldiers still fighting - you dont degrade them, you shoot at them. Why not say you cant degrade anyone?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
If any of the were obviously guilty of anything serious, they would have been tried already. Why pass up such a golden opportunity?

They wouldn't be at Gitmo in the first place - none of the high-value prisoners are there.

Gitmo is a travesty. If they are terrorist, try them. Being a soldier of the Taliban does not make you a terrorist, and those men should be released asap.

In many or most cases, being a soldier of the Taleban does make you an unlawful combatant, but most Taleban prisoners stayed in Afghanistan. Most of the prisoners in Gitmo are non-Afghans, and if they were foreign fighters operating with al Qaeda, then they certainly can be detained until the end of hostilities. The question is under what standards can they be detained?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I persons taking no active part in hostilities as CIVILIANS.

Read the sentence again:
"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, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

I don't see the word civilian. The chapter encompasses all people who are "taking no active part in the hostilities". The case of the members of armed forces was specified, so that no signatory could argue that an enemy soldier made prisoner still consitutes someone who is taking active part in the hostilities.

I don't see why you absolutely want a caveat for "terrorists". A prisoner under control, no matter his modus operandi before his capture, always constitutes a "person taking no active part in the hostilities".

Theres a reason to extend special protections to properly constituted armed forces. It gives THEM an incentive to act in certain ways. Give everyone the same protections, and you take away those incentives. It seems reasonable to take that into account in interpreting G Conv 3.

I wonder if you understand how disgusting this quote is. To you, there's only one reason why torture, mutilation, humiliation etc should be avoided. It's because we don't want the other side to do it on our boys.

As long as it'll have no effect on our boys, it is all ok to torture, mutilate, humiliate etc. the enemy

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. 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, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; "


Im confused. If these provision only apply to the above mentioned persons, who exactly ARE you allowed to inflict outrages upon personal dignity, humiliating, and degrading treatment upon? Certainly not soldiers still fighting - you dont degrade them, you shoot at them. Why not say you cant degrade anyone?

Uh, because unlawful combatants are not subject to the protections of the GC.

[Spiffor]

Im confused. If these provision only apply to the above mentioned persons, who exactly ARE you allowed to inflict outrages upon personal dignity, humiliating, and degrading treatment upon?

Some could argue that taking the life out of someone (even an enemy fighter) is quite an outrage upon his personal dignity.

The definition is worded like that, so that it can be said that enemy fighters are fair game. Everyone else isn't.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Im confused. If these provision only apply to the above mentioned persons, who exactly ARE you allowed to inflict outrages upon personal dignity, humiliating, and degrading treatment upon?

Some could argue that taking the life out of someone (even an enemy fighter) is quite an outrage upon his personal dignity.

The definition is worded like that, so that it can be said that enemy fighters are fair game. Everyone else isn't.

look spiff

1.the part of 3rd geneva you quoted has no supporting detail. Its immediately followed by a more precise definition of whos a POW. Which is then followed by extensive detail about the treatment of POWs. Cause thats what 3rd Geneva is about. The part you quoted is simply to keep someone from saying that we can do anything to anyone, as long as theyre not POWs. It does NOT create specific protections for unlawful combatants.

2. I did NOT say that the purpose of distinguishing between lawful and unlawful protection was only protection of "our boys" Its also to protect civilians, who are also the victims of unlawful combatants, and are indirectly the victims of unlawful combatants failure to wear uniforms, since it makes it difficult for an army to distinguish who its enemies in war are, and thus tends to undermine the protection of civilians in wartime.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And this debate is diversion by the admin. You'll notice the word "including", which again shows that this sentence is not exclusively about "members of armed forces", but about everybody "taking no active part in the hostilities".

The prisoners at Gitmo have long not taken any active part in the hostility, regardless of their role 5 years ago.

Sorry, your interpretation is wrong, but it looks to me like a language/legalistic error. Note the use of "detention" instead of "captivity" - the reference to "placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause" means members of the armed forces (this doesn't include unlawful combatants) in detention by third parties, civil authorities, or their own military commands, and thus not able to participate in combat operations at the time they come into the power of a High Contracting Party.

Prisoners taken in the field are by definition taking an active part in hostilities. The fact they're subsequently in captivity doesn't retroactively change their status from combatants to non-combatants.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


They wouldn't be at Gitmo in the first place - none of the high-value prisoners are there.



In many or most cases, being a soldier of the Taleban does make you an unlawful combatant, but most Taleban prisoners stayed in Afghanistan. Most of the prisoners in Gitmo are non-Afghans, and if they were foreign fighters operating with al Qaeda, then they certainly can be detained until the end of hostilities. The question is under what standards can they be detained?

There is no such thing as an unlawful combatant, it is a made up term for "We'll hold civilians against the rules of basic civilization" or "We'll hold soldiers against the geneva convention".