[ETWolverine]

One thing about it if we change what we are because of them, they win.

Does that include changing what we are to become more forgiving of them than we ever have been of any other enemy in our history? Because that is what is happening.

Nobody talked about the rights of POWs during WWII, WWI, The Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or any other war we have been involved in. Trying to become more liberal than we have ever been to POWs is just as wrong as what you are suggesting. And probably more dangerous to our nation's survival in this global war of lifestyles.

Another thing is they are criminals in my mind, so give 'em there day in court and lawfully lock 'em up, or better yet, execute them.

The fact that they are "criminals in your mind" doesn't make that true. The laws of war state that POWs are NOT criminals and cannot and should not be treated as criminals. The fact that "in your mind" they are criminals doesn't make it so. They are enemy soldiers operating in a manner that is illegal under the laws of war. They are operatives of an enemy force bent on our destruction. And if they have information that can be used to defeat the enemy, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY (not the right... the responsibility) of our government to obtain that information. That cannot be done if the POWs are treated as criminals and put through the justice system. And by law, we are not allowed to treat them as criminals, beause it is prohibitted to do so by the rules of war, lest all soldiers and POWs captured by the enemy be given sham trials and put to death or torture as "criminals" for doing their jobs.

Think about the effect of charging POWs as criminals in contravention of the rules of war before you go around advocating it. Remember that the enemy's "justice system" isn't as forgiving as ours. If we treat POWs as criminals, so will the enemy and any future enemies we might face... and our soldiers will suffer for it.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

So in your view, is anyone who makes a speech or other communication that contains "an implied threat to the USA" a terrorist?

Again... it depends on the context. In the case of OBL, where he was the planner and executioner of several attacks on the USA (9/11, the USS Cole attack, the bombings of the Marine barracks, several attacks on US embassies around the world, the first WTC bombing, etc.) then yes, his threat messages should be viewed as terrorist acts.

If some Joe Schmoe in Canada with no criminal record and no association with terrorists sends an e-mail message to his friend that says that he wishes the "USA would go to hell" because the US government's decisions are affecting the price of oranges in Ontario, it is probably not a credible threat, and can be ignored as a terrorist act.

If the threat is made by someone who is known to associate with terrorists, is known to be involved in terrorists activity, is known to support terrorism, and agrees to the philosophy of the terrorists, a message stating that "no American will be safe from the wrath of Allah/Buddah/Jehovah/insert diety or philosophical cause here" should be seen as a terrorist act.

Again, context, context, context. In the proper context, it is easy to see what constitutes terrorism and what does not.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

If you are declared to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" you may be detained indefinitely, in solitary confinement, without access to a lawyer, without contact with family, without contact by the International Committee of the Red cross or other human rights organizations. You may not petition the Courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which means that the Government does not have to say why it is holding you, or even to admit that it IS holding you. In other words, you can be effectively disappeared. If you die in custody for any reason, the Government does not have to disclose this fact or explain why you died. You may be subjected to cruel, inhumane, humiliating and degrading treatment. You may be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include treatment that the Geneva Conventions define as torture, because the Government has refused to say what these are, or how it defines torture. All of this without ever even being CHARGED, much less convicted of a crime.

You seem to have difficulty with this. Sorry, but I don't. This is how enemy combatants have been treated through most of history. People conscripted to fight against their government's enemies were subject to all manner of torture and terrible treatment. In today's world where the US military is an all volunteer force and the terrorists are an all volunteer force, where both sides know exactly what they are getting into and choose to do so anyway, and where there is no evidence that our government has actually tortured anyone, I don't think we are in a position to change 5,000 years of recorded history just to assuage your overly-civilized sensibilities. As I said to Taliniman "you are trying to hold your moral superiority over and above the safety and security of the American people. That's a dangerous stance. Your moral superiority won't do you or anyone else a damn bit of good in the grave."

If that is what it takes to destroy an enemy that has targeted us for destruction and exhibitted the ability to destroy THOUSANDS of us in a single blow, then I'm all for it. The question that I have is why are you not?

Also, keep in mind that if we treat POWs as "criminals", our enemies will do the same. They will create sham trials to justify jailing, torturing and execution of enemy "criminals"... meaning our soldiers. Keep in mind that if you believe that POWs should be put through the criminal justice system, the enemy will do the same... and their criminal justice systems aren't as forgiving as ours. That is the reason that rules against treating POWs as criminals were put in place in the first place. You eliminate those rules at the peril of our soldiers.

We cannot and must not treat POWs as "criminals"... because the criminal justice system isn't set up for handling POWs, and because doing so is detrimental to any of our own troops who are captured by the enemy.

Elliot

[talaniman]

ETWolverine, Does that include changing what we are to become more forgiving of them than we ever have been of any other enemy in our history? Because that is what is happening.

Forgiving them is your words not mine, and prosecution and punishment is hardly forgiveness, so this forgiveness argument doesn't apply at all here.

Nobody talked about the rights of POWs during WWII, WWI, The Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or any other war we have been involved in.

Maybe its time to talk about what we do to our enemy, as if your saying what was good enough then is good enough now.

Trying to become more liberal than we have ever been to POWs is just as wrong as what you are suggesting.

Liberal?? What happened to due process??? Spoken like a true right wing soldier, we are a nation of laws and we prosecute criminals, since there is no war, just crazies trying and succeeding in killing the innocent, and should be treated just like McVeigh was treated.

And probably more dangerous to our nation's survival in this global war of lifestyles.

Wow! you have a great sense of humor with this line, as its either funny or plain ridiculous. If it was a war on life styles, we can get Paris Hilton signed up ASAP! LOL!

The fact that they are "criminals in your mind" doesn't make that true. The laws of war state that POWs are NOT criminals and cannot and should not be treated as criminals. The fact that "in your mind" they are criminals doesn't make it so. They are enemy soldiers operating in a manner that is illegal under the laws of war. They are operatives of an enemy force bent on our destruction. And if they have information that can be used to defeat the enemy, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY (not the right... the responsibility) of our government to obtain that information. That cannot be done if the POWs are treated as criminals and put through the justice system. And by law, we are not allowed to treat them as criminals, beause it is prohibitted to do so by the rules of war, lest all soldiers and POWs captured by the enemy be given sham trials and put to death or torture as "criminals" for doing their jobs.

This argument is moot, given the actions of YOUR president. And since you have no control of what the enemy does, it makes the argument even more bogus, and emotionally contrived, as it accomplishes NOTHING.

Think about the effect of charging POWs as criminals in contravention of the rules of war before you go around advocating it. Remember that the enemy's "justice system" isn't as forgiving as ours. If we treat POWs as criminals, so will the enemy and any future enemies we might face... and our soldiers will suffer for it.

I hate to break this to you but they already suffer as when our boys are captured they rarely come back. Your argument comparing our justice to theirs, is irrelevant. We don't behead people in this country.:eek:

[ordinaryguy]

Elliot--

You have a lot to say about the difference between POWs and criminals, but nothing at all to say about the difference between POWs and "unlawful enemy combatants". Is that because you don't know that there is a difference, or because you think the difference doesn't matter?

[ETWolverine]

Ordinaryguy,

It is because unlawful combatants aren't under the protections of the GC. Therefore, they lie outside of what you can legally do to a regular POW. And if POWs cannot be legally put through the criminal justice system, then how much more so is that true of unlawful enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me to now argue that they should have even MORE protections than the GC provides for.

[ordinaryguy]

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
If you are declared to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" you may be detained indefinitely, in solitary confinement, without access to a lawyer, without contact with family, without contact by the International Committee of the Red cross or other human rights organizations. You may not petition the Courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which means that the Government does not have to say why it is holding you, or even to admit that it IS holding you. In other words, you can be effectively disappeared. If you die in custody for any reason, the Government does not have to disclose this fact or explain why you died. You may be subjected to cruel, inhumane, humiliating and degrading treatment. You may be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include treatment that the Geneva Conventions define as torture, because the Government has refused to say what these are, or how it defines torture. All of this without ever even being CHARGED, much less convicted of a crime.

You seem to have difficulty with this. Sorry, but I don't.

Do you not have difficulty with captured US soldiers being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with children being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with innocent people being treated this way? If you do have difficulty with any of these things, you should have difficulty with giving the government unchecked and absolute power to treat anyone that it deems "hostile" this way.

This is how enemy combatants have been treated through most of history. People conscripted to fight against their government's enemies were subject to all manner of torture and terrible treatment. In today's world where the US military is an all volunteer force and the terrorists are an all volunteer force, where both sides know exactly what they are getting into and choose to do so anyway, and where there is no evidence that our government has actually tortured anyone, I don't think we are in a position to change 5,000 years of recorded history just to assuage your overly-civilized sensibilities.

Just how far are you willing to go down this path? Should US troops, police and secret agents be allowed and encouraged to use torture and summary executions by beheading? Are you willing accept any and all techniques of terrorism, torture or degradation that an enemy might use as legitimate for use by our forces?

If that is what it takes to destroy an enemy that has targeted us for destruction and exhibitted the ability to destroy THOUSANDS of us in a single blow, then I'm all for it. The question that I have is why are you not?

Well, one reason I'm not for it is that it doesn't work. The use of these methods by the US has only made it easier for the radical Islamists to recruit new converts and convince them to sacrifice themselves in the killing of both military personnel and civilians. Another reason is that I think it's destructive of the progress that the rule of law and the norms of civilized behavior have made over the last thousand years or so. Another reason is that giving the government unchecked power to deprive individuals of life, liberty and property without due process of law is a recipe for tyranny.

[ETWolverine]

Liberal? What happened to due process??

DUE PROCESS is the process of following the law, rather than one's personal feelings. What we are doing with the POWs IS the due process for POWs. What you wan't is to change that due process to something else, something that has never existed before. Sorry, that doesn't qualify as following due process.

Spoken like a true right wing soldier, we are a nation of laws and we prosecute criminals, since there is no war, just crazies trying and succeeding in killing the innocent, and should be treated just like McVeigh was treated.

Yes, we prosecute CRIMINALS, not POWs.

Furthermore, I suggest that you read the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq. We are at war, whether you want to admitt it or not. You may not like it. You may not want to recognize it. But Congress did recognize it, and we are indeed at war in the legal and moral sense. Wars have POWs, and they are not criminals.

Wow! You have a great sense of humor with this line, as its either funny or plain ridiculous. If it was a war on life styles, we can get Paris Hilton signed up ASAP! LOL

Glad you think its funny. The 3000 dead people at the WTC and their families probably fail to see the humor in it. I would be willing to guess that the 56 dead people from the July 2005 underground bombings in London fail to see the humor as well. Or the 202 dead from the Bali bombing in 2002, the 120 dead Moskovites from the Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis in 2002, the 191 dead from the commuter train bombings in Spain in 2004, the 344 dead children in the Breslan school hostage crisis in 2004, the 60 dead from the November 2005 bombings of hotels in Amman, Jordan, the 209 dead from the bombing of commuter trains in Mumbai, India in 2006. I get the feeling they don't find this topic to be quite as funny as you do.

We are up against a fanatical enemy thaqt wants to destroy anything that isn't Muslim. They don't care whether it is communist or capitalist, democratic or dictatorship. They just want to destroy or forcibly convert everything and everyone to Islam. This is a fight of our way of life vs. theirs. And if you can't see that, then you deserve what comes of it.

This argument is moot, given the actions of YOUR president.

Like it or not, he's OUR president. He is the duly elected, constitutionally empowered commander-in-chief and executive of the USA. As long as you are a citizen of this country, he's YOUR president as well, whether you voted for him or not. Just as Clinton and Carter were my presidents even theough I didn't vote for them.

And since you have no control of what the enemy does, it makes the argument even more bogus, and emotionally contrived, as it accomplishes NOTHING.

Emotionally contrived? I think not. Every argument I have made is mased on law, logic and analystical thinking. That's what I do... I'm an analyst by profession. I take information and analyze it. I don't make haphazard, emotional decisions. You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about.

[quote]I hate to break this to you but they already suffer as when our boys are captured they rarely come back. [quote]

Yes, that's the point. The enemy treats our POWs like animals to be slaughtered. We treat theirs like POWs, with basic human respect. Giving them additional rights that they neither deserve nor expect is just plain stupid. So why are you arguing for the POWs to be given more rights?

Your argument comparing our justice to theirs, is irrelevant. We don't behead people in this country.:eek:

Actually, I'm not trying to compare our justice system with theirs. I'm arguing that POWs do not belong in the justice system at all. They aren't criminals. They are POWs.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Do you not have difficulty with captured US soldiers being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with children being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with innocent people being treated this way? If you do have difficulty with any of these things, you should have difficulty with giving the government unchecked and absolute power to treat anyone that it deems "hostile" this way.

You are asking me if I have difficulty with POWs being treated as POWs? NO!! That's the way they are supposed to be treated. Non-combatants are a different story. Children, innocent bystanders, etc. should be treated as the GC requires governments to treat non-combatants. But POWs should be treated as POWs, not as something more than that, with greater freedoms and rights than POWs are allowed.

Just how far are you willing to go down this path? Should US troops, police and secret agents be allowed and encouraged to use torture and summary executions by beheading?

Are any of those allowed by the GC? Not that I have seen.

[quote]Are you willing accept any and all techniques of terrorism, torture or degradation that an enemy might use as legitimate for use by our forces?[quote]

There's no such things as "techniques of terrorism'. There are techniques of guerrila warfare. When those techniques are used against civillians, it is terrorism. When it is used against other soldiers, it is called war. But there is no such thing as a technique of terrorism.

And just so you know, US soldiers are indeed trained in guerilla warfare. Especially our special forces. They are taught these techniques both so that they can learn to counter them, and so that they can use them against the enemy.

But leaving that point aside, you are arguing the slippery slope argument. To which I respond with the words of Admiral Sir John A. Fisher. "The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imecility." There is no such thing as fighting war halfway. You use everything at your disposal. You can argue about slippery slopes when the war is over. Till then the job of the soldier is to kill the enemy using whatever means necessary, the job of the government is to beat the enemy using whatever means necessary. And from practicality, if that means using torture to get information on the imminent terrorist attack, then I say go for it. I'll worry about the philosophical arguments about tainiting my soul at some later point when the war is over. Still, I have yet to hear of a single case of actual torture in this war.

Well, one reason I'm not for it is that it doesn't work. The use of these methods by the US has only made it easier for the radical Islamists to recruit new converts and convince them to sacrifice themselves in the killing of both military personnel and civilians.

Really? Have you read the late Zarqawi's letter about how difficult it was to recruit new terrorists to his cause? Have you read the various intelligence intercepts that have been made public about failing recruitment efforst by the terrorists? Have you read about how the number of leads coming from Sunni sources about terrorists in their areas are increasing? Have you read the commentaries about how the terrorists are losing the support of the Sunni "street"? Have you read about the fact that civilian deaths from terrorism in Iraq is down 36% for June?

Where do you get the idea that anything the USA has done has increased recruitment for the terrorists? Your information is just wrong... or else you are just reciting the anti-Bush talking points without proof to back it up.

Another reason is that I think it's destructive of the progress that the rule of law and the norms of civilized behavior have made over the last thousand years or so. Another reason is that giving the government unchecked power to deprive individuals of life, liberty and property without due process of law is a recipe for tyranny.

War isn't governed by the rule of law. Nor should it be. Especially when your enemy doesn't care about the progress civilization has made over the past thousand years. They want to destroy that civilization, remember?

If you want to show how civilized you are, the best thing you can do is destroy the enemy utterly by overwhelming him as fast as you can. Fighting with an eye on being "civilized" only draws out the war, making it last longer, which increases innocent civilian casualties. Wars that are fought with overwhelming force and with utter ruthlessness end quickly, minimizing casualties on both sides in the long run. Your very ideas for fighting a "civilized" war are counterproductive to your stated goal of saving innocent lives. And if the war will end more quickly by gaining the information to destroy the enemy via waterboarding, then go for it. Because in the cold, hard analysis of war, winning is all that counts. Civilized behavior is for peacetime.

Elliot

[talaniman]

I suggest that you read the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq.

You don't mean the BS and phony excuses to invade a country, instead of go after the real terrorists in Afganistain/Pakistain??

[talaniman]

War isn't governed by the rule of law. Nor should it be. Especially when your enemy doesn't care about the progress civilization has made over the past thousand years. They want to destroy that civilization, remember?

If you want to show how civilized you are, the best thing you can do is destroy the enemy utterly by overwhelming him as fast as you can. Fighting with an eye on being "civilized" only draws out the war, making it last longer, which increases innocent civilian casualties. Wars that are fought with overwhelming force and with utter ruthlessness end quickly, minimizing casualties on both sides in the long run. Your very ideas for fighting a "civilized" war are counterproductive to your stated goal of saving innocent lives. And if the war will end more quickly by gaining the information to destroy the enemy via waterboarding, then go for it. Because in the cold, hard analysis of war, winning is all that counts. Civilized behavior is for peacetime.

So nuke the suckers and get it over with.

[ordinaryguy]

You are asking me if I have difficulty with POWs being treated as POWs? NO!!! That's the way they are supposed to be treated.

No, that's not even close to what I'm asking. Article III of the Geneva Conventions clearly PROHIBITS treating POWs as I described, and POWs are not being treated that way as far as I know. The issue is not how POWs are being treated, or whether they're being given too few or too many rights. It has NOTHING TO DO with properly designated Prisoners of War.

The problem is that the Government has invented a whole new class of persons that is not recognized in the Geneva Conventions AT ALL, a class called "unlawful enemy combatants" that are emphatically NOT Prisoners of War, a class that the Government asserts have NO rights whatsoever--not the rights of POWs, not the rights of civilian criminals, not the rights of non-combatant civilians, no "human rights", no rights of due process, none of the rights enumerated in the Magna Carta, English Common Law, the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. And the ONLY qualification for being included in this class is that the President deems you to be "hostile" to the US.

War isn't governed by the rule of law. Nor should it be. Especially when your enemy doesn't care about the progress civilization has made over the past thousand years. They want to destroy that civilization, remember?

And if we become like them in order to defeat them, they will have succeeded.

Civilized behavior is for peacetime.

If enough people come to believe this, we will have neither peace nor civilization.

[ordinaryguy]

Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway.

This is simply not true. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War enumerates the rights that must be afforded to prisoners of war. Unlawful enemy combatants are being deprived of many of these rights, including but not limited to:

• Article 12. Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.
  
• Article 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. No prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind.
  Prisoners of war must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
  
• Article 70. Prisoners of war may communicate directly with their families and may inform them of their capture and their state of health.
  
• Article 84. In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.
  
• Article 99. No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.
  
• Article 102. A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power.
  
• Article 103. Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible.
  
• Article 106. Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him.

[tomder55]

The Geneva Conventions have specific definition of what an unlawful or illegal combatant should be. And an unlawful combatant does not get the protections of the Geneva convention since, the whole purpose of the Geneva convention is to limit civilian casualties by forcing combatants to declare and distinguish themselves as such.

So, anyone who's determined to be an unlawful combatant should be shot.End of problem.
I still maintain that the best solution would be to play “De Guello” before any action .That way we would not need a corp of lawyers following the troops to read Miranda rights to captured enemy.

[ETWolverine]

Ordinaryguy,

Article 4 of the GC defines prisoners of war.

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.

Since the terrorists do not wear a "sign distinctly recognizable at a distance" (uniform), do not carry arms openly, and do not follow the recognized laws and customs of war (deliberate targeting of civillians), they are NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. Thus, my statement that "Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway" is true.

Article 12. Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.

As far as I can tell, all the countries that POWs have been transferred to have publicly stated their willingness and ability to apply the rules of the Convention. Do you have any proof that this is not the case?

Article 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. No prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. Prisoners of war must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Can you name any prisoners in Gitmo? The only ones I can name are the ones who made themselves famous by taking their "cases" to the Supreme Court. The POWs are not being publicly intimidated or insulted. Nor is there any proof of any form of torture despite numerous allegations.

Article 70. Prisoners of war may communicate directly with their families and may inform them of their capture and their state of health.

Communication with families is permitted under the GC, but communication with other terrorists or enemies of the USA is not. Do you know of any cases where families have tried to communicate with POWs and been denied such contact? Can you name any such case?

Article 84. In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.

Article 99. No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

Article 102. A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power.

Article 103. Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible.

Article 106. Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him.

These would seem to apply in cases where the POWs are being accused of crimes and being tried for criminal activity. That is not the case with the majority of the POWs. In cases where POWs have appeared before the courts, they have been ganted appropriate representation. But if they aren't being charged with any sort of crime and aren't appearing in court, there is no need for attorney representation or guarantees of court impartiality, is there?

So I maintain that my statement that the USA treats the POWs properly under the GC even though the GC doesn't apply to them is 100% true and correct.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Talaniman,

You don't mean the BS and phony excuses to invade a country, instead of go after the real terrorists in Afganistain/Pakistain??

Again, you are spouting stuff that you have heard from others but don't really understand yourself. The Authorization for Use of Military Force isn't the excuse to go to war in Iraq. It is the authorization to do so. The so-called "excuses" can be found in the various speeches of George Bush and this document. You need to get your terminology straight. And your facts.

So nuke the suckers and get it over with.

Exactly my point. In the final analysis, that would end the war more quickly than the way we are going now, which would result in fewer casualties in the long run. We SHOULD nuke the suckers.

Or barring that, we should beat the living crap out of them with everything we have in our conventional arsenal rather than playing tag with them. Boot them in the head, don't piss on them. That will bring a quick end to the war and save more lives in the long run.

Elliot

[ordinaryguy]

the Geneva Conventions have specific definition of what an unlawful or illegal combatant should be.

The terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant", "unlawful/illegal enemy combatant", or "non-privileged combatant" do not even appear in the Conventions, much less being specifically defined.

So, anyone who's determined to be an unlawful combatant should be shot.End of problem.

Summary execution of anyone suspected or accused (not charged or convicted) of "hostilities" against the US would most certainly NOT be the "end of problem". Think it through.

[ordinaryguy]

Since the terrorists do not wear a "sign distinctly recognizable at a distance" (uniform), do not carry arms openly, and do not follow the recognized laws and customs of war (deliberate targeting of civillians), they are NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

I agree that not all detainees qualify for POW status. I do not agree that they may therefore be detained indefinitely without charge, denied right to counsel, denied visits by the ICRC or other humanitarian organizations, and subjected humiliating and degrading treatment. Which detainees have been denied which rights or subjected to what treatment is unknown, but what is known is that the Government has asserted that it is under no obligation, by treaty, law, custom or Convention to extend any such rights to any of them. What is even more indefensible is that the Government claims sole, absolute, and unreviewable authority to determine who shall be designated as an "unlawful combatant" and may therefore be deprived of any and all rights that the Government chooses to withhold.

Thus, my statement that "Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway" is true.

If you can find an official policy statement to the effect that unlawful combatants are to be afforded the same protections as POWs, please provide a citation.

The United States has labeled all persons in its custody captured in Afghanistan as "unlawful combatants," "battlefield detainees," or "illegal combatants," and has indicated that while they may be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, there is no obligation that the United States so treat them. For instance, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated on January 11, 2001 that those held were "unlawful combatants" and that "unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate."

The U.S. position is inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions on several counts. First, the U.S. may not classify as a group all detainees from the Afghan conflict as not being entitled to POW status; such a determination must be made on an individual basis by a competent tribunal. Second, there is a presumption that a captured combatant is a POW unless determined otherwise. Third, it is incorrect to assert that only POWs are protected by the Geneva Conventions-all persons apprehended in the context of an international armed conflict, including the types of prisoners the U.S. has labeled as "unlawful combatants," receive some level of protection under the Geneva Conventions. Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by U.S. Forces - Human Rights Watch Press Backgrounder, January 29, 2002

[ETWolverine]

If you can find an official policy statement to the effect that unlawful combatants are to be afforded the same protections as POWs, please provide a citation.

Here you go.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 7, 2002

Fact Sheet
Status of Detainees at Guantanamo
United States Policy.


The United States is treating and will continue to treat all of the individuals detained at Guantanamo humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees.

Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.

Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs.

Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled to POW status.

Even though the detainees are not entitled to POW privileges, they will be provided many POW privileges as a matter of policy.
All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided:

-three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws
-water
-medical care
-clothing and shoes
-shelter
-showers
-soap and toilet articles
-foam sleeping pads and blankets
-towels and washcloths
-the opportunity to worship
-correspondence materials, and the means to send mail
-the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening

The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

Housing. We are building facilities in Guantanamo more appropriate for housing the detainees on a long-term basis. The detainees now at Guantanamo are being housed in temporary open-air shelters until these more long-term facilities can be arranged. Their current shelters are reasonable in light of the serious security risk posed by these detainees and the mild climate of Cuba.

POW Privileges the Detainees will not receive. The detainees will receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the specific privileges afforded to POWs, including:

-access to a canteen to purchase food, soap, and tobacco
-a monthly advance of pay
-the ability to have and consult personal financial accounts
-the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments, or sports outfits

Many detainees at Guantanamo pose a severe security risk to those responsible for guarding them and to each other. Some of these individuals demonstrated how dangerous they are in uprisings at Mazar-e-Sharif and in Pakistan. The United States must take into account the need for security in establishing the conditions for detention at Guantanamo.

Background on Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 is an international treaty designed to protect prisoners of war from inhumane treatment at the hands of their captors in conflicts covered by the Convention. It is among four treaties concluded in the wake of WWII to reduce the human suffering caused by war. These four treaties provide protections for four different classes of people: the military wounded and sick in land conflicts; the military wounded, sick and shipwrecked in conflicts at sea; military persons and civilians accompanying the armed forces in the field who are captured and qualify as prisoners of war; and civilian non-combatants who are interned or otherwise found in the hands of a party (e.g. in a military occupation) during an armed conflict.

Please note that this policy has been in place since 2002, long before questions of the status of terrorist POWs ever hit the media. You might argue that there have been violations of this policy (I happen to disagree), but you cannot argue as to what the official policy actually is.

Elliot

[ordinaryguy]

You might argue that there have been violations of this policy (I happen to disagree),

Report on the Treatment by Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other Protected Persons in Iraq
Excerpt from the Executive Summary:

The main violations which are described in the ICRC report and presented confidentially to the CF [Coalition Forces], include

• Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury,
• Absence of notification of arrest of persons deprived of their liberty to their families....
• Physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information,
• Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight,
• Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their internment

but you cannot argue as to what the official policy actually is.

It doesn't say that all detainees will be given "the same protections as regular POWs". It says that they will be given whatever "privileges" that the Government decides to give them, and no more. In particular, the Government continues to detain them indefinitely without charge.