EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[Rambuchan]

So what you're saying is that you (and perhaps the US Senate according to you) are now indeed disagreeing on the definition of torture and renegging on those agreements and declarations it signed. Right?

Well, that's called violating declarations you've made yourself party to.

 

[nonconformist]

I'm curious if you even really know what you're saying? Under the Geneva Convention, anyone captured bearing arms against you, but having no allegiance to a foreign country or wearing no distinguishable uniform is classifed as a terrorist. Not a random person plucked off the street. If you want to believe that these men were just randomly thrown in there then go right ahead and be naive.

Wrong.

Geneva affords protection to people who spontaneously take up arms, people openly carrying weapons, or people who fight as a cophesive unit with a command structure.
If there is any doubt on a captured person's status, he must be afforded all of the privileges of a combatant.

 

[nonconformist]

So what you're saying is that torture methods are okay to use as long as they don't leave permanent marks or provide longlasting damage? I have to say it's a very intelligent decision by US interrogators to use methods like "putting people in uncomfortable positions" or "playing a bit of a music to them", becuase they're so easily waved off by people like yourself. Maybe they should start beating prisoners with wet towels too, then if it gets out we can all just laugh at the silly hi-jinks, and chuckle to ourselves, "it's not really torture, is it?".

I hear tha VietMinh manage dto perfect the water torture, which they use don US Servicemen.
But it was all fun and games.

And the NKVD/KGB sleep deprivation. I mean, don't kids raise each other early in the morning by beatings before being interrogate for hours, released, and reinterrogated the moment you fall alseep?

 

[FredLC]

Here is a link to the texts of Geneva convention.

Here's an excerpt from the convention III:

Art. 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:

(...)

(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.

(...)

Art. 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

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.

Bolding and underlining by me.

Regards .

 

[Elrohir]

Fred, I don't think there is much doubt as to their status. They are illegal combatants, and do not have the same protections that the uniformed soldiers of a soverign nation would enjoy.

Alright, I read some of the BBC PDF file Ram. I'm still waiting for proof of torture. They seem to have proof that they use some interrogation techniques that are certainly rough, and I wouldn't enjoy (Making them stand for hours on end; isolation for 30 days at a time; listening to rap music, etc) but I wouldn't qualify them as torture. And it doesn't sound like the UN would either:

1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Bolding mine. Note that they use the phrase "severe pain or suffering". If severe pain or suffering is considered torture, and minor pain, suffering, or annoyances are not mentioned, I would say that they do not fit under the definition of torture.

The one thing I found troubling was the allegations of beating by the guards. But there was no evidence of it besides the testimony of former inmates; people who would have every motivation to lie. Objective evidence would very much help here.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

Thank you guys for the research. makes me feel alot better

 

[blackheart]

Fred, I don't think there is much doubt as to their status. They are illegal combatants, and do not have the same protections that the uniformed soldiers of a soverign nation would enjoy.

Again, what the hell is an illegal combatant? If they're not a uniformed enemy soldier, and they're not a citizen of America, but they're foreigners, how much America extend its sovereignty and declare someone an illegal combatant?

Regardless of what they're classified as, why should the Geneva Conventions NOT be followed? They were signed for a reason, and they should be upheld. Unless you want to go back to the old days of WW2 style prisoner treatment.

 

[nonconformist]

Fred, I don't think there is much doubt as to their status. They are illegal combatants, and do not have the same protections that the uniformed soldiers of a soverign nation would enjoy.

Again; yes they do.
Geneva potects against pretty much anyone who takes up arms, bar mercenaries.

 

[FredLC]

Fred, I don't think there is much doubt as to their status. They are illegal combatants, and do not have the same protections that the uniformed soldiers of a soverign nation would enjoy.

I know that line of argument would rise. Well, in order to evaluate the merit of this, please enlighten me as to what is the definition of "Illegal Combatant", and how it difers from the group protected by the 6th provision of the 4th article, of the quote I brought into the thread.

Regards .

 

[Mr. Do]

And even if the legal argument is valid, it's still completely against the spirit of international law and human rights. If you're fine with that though, good for you.

 

[Pyrite]

Since these people are not christians, it follows that the geneva convention does not apply to them. Praise!

 

[Sidhe]

Fred, I don't think there is much doubt as to their status. They are illegal combatants, and do not have the same protections that the uniformed soldiers of a soverign nation would enjoy.

I think the point is you can't just make an assumption without tribuneral, so their legal status remains unclear and they are protected by the Geneva convention, untill such time as an independant tribuneral can make a judgement. This hasn't happened at all and so the US are in breach of the Geneva convention. Guilty until proven innocent, which of course again is impossible without a trial.

 

[Verbose]

The EU is asking the US to please stop creating anomalies.

This is a growing concern:
For expediency's sake the US is creating a state of exception in international relations; anomalous situations.

What's on the line:
The ideals of universalism (human rights, democracy, freedom, rule of law etc.) that has been an ongoing Western project for a couple of centuries, since the liberal revolutions.

Keep overriding them like this with ad hoc inventions that seem useful for the mo and there won't be anything left of it in the end. Instead you'll get a form of privilege system where things like rule of law and human rights only apply to certain kinds of people.
When told about "human rights" one of the reactionary leaders fighting the German liberal revolution of 1848 replied: "Humanity begins with the baron." Here we're approaching the state of "Humanity begins with the American." (Or "Humanity ends above the Muslim", or thereabouts.)

If that kind of international privilege system is fine by you, by all means support the practices of the present US admin. But you can't really bewail the fact that the US isn't really regarded as a fount of freedom and democracy for others.
The US is of course free to suspend whichever ideals on which it was created it likes, but it might be a good idea for it not to kid itself about possible implications of doing so.

 

[FredLC]

Bravo, Bravo, Verbose.

The thing here seens to be that many aren't making the logical connection of what this kind of mentality means, and to what paths it leads.

I always thought that the old "The minute I start ploting to take away rights of the people I don't like is the minute someone else will start ploting to take away rights of my own" adage was granted knowledge, but apparently, it has to be repeated from time to time.

Regards .

 

[Ellipsis Jones]

I'm not a lawyer, but:

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.

Doesn't that last bit disqualify members of al-Qaeda and similar organizations?

 

[FredLC]

That will depend in what circunstance they are arrested.

Thing is that if they are arrested at the invasion of a terrorist cell headquarter, ploting to explod buildings, they are not POWs - but this does not mean that they can be arrested without trial, only that the trial they should get is civilian, and they loose the possibility of release under the "following orders" status (because a pow only is punished by war crimes, which don't include fighting and killing enemy troops in regular combat).

Now, if people were arrested because they shoot at US soldiers during the invasion, because they combated the invading army, they will fit under the 6th provision.

Anyway, if an actual terrorist happens to be arrested in open combat - as in, the act he was ingaging in his capture does not fit into an evident violation of the provisions of war - he then must be treated as a POW until a tribunal, after evaluating evidence, changes his status - what again, sets him up to a civilian criminal trial.

Point is: either a person gets a military trial or a civilian one. What is an absurd and a travesty in this whole situation is the fabrication of a phony cathegory to fit people, to them conclude that whoever is included has no rights at all.

Regards .

 

[YNCS]

The "illegal combatant" category was manufactured by the Bush administration to bypass the Geneva Conventions. As FredLC has shown, the prisoners in Guantanamo are POWs protected by the Geneva Conventions, since no tribunal has ruled otherwise. Donald Rumsfeld is not a tribunal.

 

[Princeps]

The "illegal combatant" category was manufactured by the Bush administration to bypass the Geneva Conventions.

Actually, as I said in another thread previously, the illegal combatant is a ridicolous loophole used by many armies to justify torture. Not only Bush administ.

 

[Rambuchan]

Good posts there by Fred and Verbose. Oh and nice comment on what does not constiute a tribunal YNCS.

 

[Elrohir]

Again, what the hell is an illegal combatant? If they're not a uniformed enemy soldier, and they're not a citizen of America, but they're foreigners, how much America extend its sovereignty and declare someone an illegal combatant?

Regardless of what they're classified as, why should the Geneva Conventions NOT be followed? They were signed for a reason, and they should be upheld. Unless you want to go back to the old days of WW2 style prisoner treatment.

Dictionary.com:

Main Entry: unlawful combatant
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: n individual who violates the law by engaging in combat; an individual who is involved in but not authorized to take part in hostilities; also called illegal combatant, unprivileged combatant
Example: An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts, but does not qualify under the Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war.

We could follow the Geneva Convention if we wished do. But we are, when dealing with terrorists, not obligated to. We will respect their basic human rights after capturing them - we won't torture them - but that's it. We are not obligated to try them (Although I think we generally should) and we are certainly not obligated to just let them go, and many people seem to think is the best plan.

I'm not a lawyer, but:

Quote:
Originally Posted by category 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.

Doesn't that last bit disqualify members of al-Qaeda and similar organizations?

I would think so, as do many legal scholars, but others disagree. I would say that as terrorists neither carry arms openly (They would be slaughtered by US forces quite quickly if they did; they no longer fight openly at all, it's mostly suicide and car bombings now) or respect the laws and customs of war, they do not get the benefits that those who do, should, and would receive.

Tell me Fred and co, do you see any difference, morally or legally, between a man who wears a uniform, carries a rifle, and fights the enemy who invades his country; and the man who does not carry weapons openly, and fights not only the enemy soldiers, but killing civilians without conscience as well? If you do not, I'm afraid we don't have anything to talk about. If you do, then tell me, if they are not the same, legally or morally, why should we give to the second man the same benefits that we would to the first?