Omar Khadr's Interrogation Videos

[BeBMan]

Will any next pres get rid of the gitmo stuff?

[Theben]

Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Can you link that? It'd end this whole argument...

[Arrian]

In other words, if Muslims treated American prisoners properly, I'd be opposed to their torture. As it is, I don't care what happens to those bastards.

EPIC FAIL.

As pointed out by Garth.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Theben

Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Can you link that? It'd end this whole argument...

It is in the commentary for the 4th Convention, page 51.

I found it cited here in a 1998 ruling:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/part3B.htm

It's the 5th paragraph in the section "(ii) Were the Victims Prisoners of War?".

In full:

[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.

---

This position is confirmed by article 50 of Additional Protocol I which regards as civilians all persons who are not combatants as defined in article 4(A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention, and article 43 of the Protocol itself.

[Patroklos]

Bush and his cronies -- and this includes you -- have invented a part of the convention that does not exist and brainwashed everyone else into thinking it did.

You realize that this is harmful to your desire to get him into Canada, right? We can classify him a POW and keep him anyway, or prosecute him as an GC violator and execute him, which do you prefer? Either way he isn't going back to Canada.

Congrats Asher on destroying this kids life further

What "proof of mistreatment" would be adequate for you? You dodged my question.

Lets start with Omar specific evidence, and evidence that isn't uncorroborated hersay for one.

Oh, I get it now! Torture only counts if EVERYONE gets tortured! But since only some did, IT'S OKAY! EVERYTHING'S FINE!!

Who said torture was okay, certainly not me. Feel free to quote me though. In any case, it isn't about whether torture is OK, but rather if it happened to Omar or not.

As you decend into various absurdities, I will point out again the fallacy of your statement in question and that you have yet to show anything proving Omar was tortured.

btw, I like that "mistreated" substitute for "tortured". You should work for Karl Rove.

It wasn't a substitute, but it is interesting you bring it up because Asher makes no distictiong between mistreatment, abuse, and torture.

I think that since, oh I dunno, we pride ourselves in being a moral nation we should walk the walk, which in my book means no torture.

I am inclined to agree with you, but of course that is most certainly not the arguement being had here (though I am sure you thought the switch would spare you the reprecutions of your failure here). Rather, we are talking about whether or not Omar was tortured or not (and as a side issue whether his simple imprisonment is legal). You have nothing to show or suggest Omar was tortured, you fail.

No need. I figure you've answered my questions to the capacity your brain is able to.

Again, since you didn't ask any, and you apparently maintain you did, your brain capacity is apparent.

It is in the commentary for the 4th Convention, page 51.

Commentary?Oh, you make this easy. Here is what a prisoner of war is from the article itself, which one is Omar?

ARTICLE 3

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;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which
are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of
the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force,
by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of
the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal
status of the Parties to the conflict.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under
the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the
occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by
reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has
originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside
the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have
made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which
they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to
comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the
present Article, who have been received by neutral or
non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are
required to intern under international law, without prejudice to
any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give
and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph,
58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the
Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power
concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where
such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom
these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the
functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present
Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties
normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage
and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel
and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Why, he isn't there!

Even better...

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy
the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
has been determined by a competent tribunal.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
You do what's right because it's right. If the other side is doing something different, well that's probably why they are the other side.

QFT
QFT
QFT

[Felch]

Originally posted by Arrian
EPIC FAIL.

As pointed out by Garth.

-Arrian

EPIC FAIL? I'm glad you hopped into the thread long enough to contribute that. You really made a difference in a lot of people's lives.

As far as what Garth said, I don't agree. If I do the right thing it's not because it's right, but usually by accident.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asher
Can someone quote the part of the Geneva Conventions that say it's okay to do whatever the **** you want to 15 year olds? I missed that part.

The last time I checked, everyone -- POW or unlawful combatant or civilian -- is entitled to humane treatment.

I can't help Patty (Who could or would want to?) but I can quote article 1 section 3 of the GC.

Article 3

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;

[b](d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.[b]

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

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

So we have:

1) A signatories are legally obligated that "the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever".

2) This legally binding obligations include: cruel treatment and/or torture, "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment", not punishing anyone unless convicted by a regularly constituted court with all the " judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples", and we have a legal obligation to provide medical care to those in custody.

3) The guidelines approved by Cheney and Rumsfield include denying people sleep (by continually hitting or shacking them) for up to 50 days, striping them naked, subjecting them to extreme cold or hot conditions, forcing men to wear womens underwear or remain naked, waterboarding, it approves making detains crawl on all fours for extended periods and even being forced to wear a dog collar and dog leash, throwing used tampons at them, forcing large quantities of water down their throat while tied up then not allowing them to use the bathroom so that they piss on themselves... These are all authorised by Cheney & Rumsfield.

Do you think any of those things are cruel or if they might be "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"?

4) Pay very special attention to "The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict."

[Dinner]

There is a reason the Red Cross has said the Bush Administration has broken the Geneva Convention and is guilty of war crimes. It isn't partisanship or nationalism it is because the above international laws have very clearly been broken.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian

EPIC FAIL.

Epic fail pretty much sums up Patty and Felch's position in this thread.

[Patroklos]

I can't help Patty (Who could or would want to?)

I am trying to remember where I said torturing Omar is cool, could someone please quote me? Anyone?

RTFT

[Ramo]

In other words, if Muslims treated American prisoners properly, I'd be opposed to their torture. As it is, I don't care what happens to those bastards.

More sig material. A veritable treasure trove, here.

[Ramo]

Again, ZERO evidence, nadda, nothing. Asher actually admitted this himself above.

In a civilized society, there should be evidence needed to justify detention, not evidence needed to justify freedom.

[Patroklos]

In a civilized society, there should be evidence to justify detention, not evidence to justify freedom.

Nobody is disputing that he was a member of Al Queda and engaged in hostile action agains coalition forces, beach alone capable of justifing his simple detention.

We are not really discussing that, nor is that what I was talking about in the quote you posted (as you know anyway, why so disengenuous Ramo?). We were discussing proof of torture, on which I am correct.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am trying to remember where I said torturing Omar is cool, could someone please quote me? Anyone?

RTFT

You didn't (I don't think) but Felch said he was okay with it. And a lot of Bushies don't seem to have a problem with it; you follow the admin credo often, you got lumped in there with them. If that's not the case, I apologize for any remarks that indicated you did.

However you did say:

In any case, it isn't about whether torture is OK, but rather if it happened to Omar or not.

[sic]

Rather, we are talking about whether or not Omar was tortured or not (and as a side issue whether his simple imprisonment is legal). You have nothing to show or suggest Omar was tortured, you fail.

There is considerable evidence that there is systemic torture (not just mistreatment, but also torture) at Gitmo. Also the IRC said Omar's treatment constitutes torture. Neither you nor I were there, so we have to rely on 3rd party information about this. Given this context, and given that this admin is prone to lying about, well, EVERYTHING, I'd say the burden of proof is on the admin.

And at any rate it's more bad PR that we can ill afford. As Felch says he doesn't want to "needlessly endangers civilians", I can't imagine this will go over well with the fence sitters in the Islamic world. After all, it only takes one fence sitter to drive a truck full of explosives, which would endanger more than just civilians.