Defending the Truth

hevusa · 03-10-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

You keep ignoring the laws. Your feel good semantics is noble. Unfortunately, the law des consider feelings. Members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda do not fall under the characterization of prisoners of war. Instead they fall under the classification of unlawful combatants. The Supreme Court of the United States has deemed unlawful combatants as Enemy Combatants.

In either case, combatants do not classify as criminals unless they can be proven to have commited war crimes. It is only then that they require a trial or tribunal of any sort. The Geneva Convention allows for the holding of combatants until the cease of hostilities.

People keep using the word indefinite. Until one of the Gitmo prisoners has been held longer than 7 years, your words are mere rhetoric. During the Vietnam War there were prisoners who had been held for 5, 6 and 7 years. No one at Gitmo is even remotely close to that time frame.

First you accused the administration of making up the word. An assertion I proved false.

Then you accused the administration of not abiding by the law. Once again an assertion I proved to be false.

Now all ou have left are your feel good feelings and rhetoric. Face it, you lack merit and truly have no real argument other than you don't like it. The facts and the laws are against you.

dmk

If this is truely the "War on Terror" then they are cetainly POW's and deserve to be told what they are charged of and receive a fair trial.

Having the Bush administration define what these people are to avoid law is bullshit and I find your personal morals questionable since you are clearly defending these actions.

Katczinsky · 03-10-2006, 07:07 PM

The Bush administration can't have it both ways. They want it to be a state of war so they can limit our liberties at home but they want to dumb it down so that torchure and mistreatment of people, which are mostly innocent by the way, doesn't fall under the Geneva Convention.

Like the torchure of innocents and civilians is more just than the torchure of soldiers anyway.

Wow, if you want to engage in this injustice, you should probably move to North Korea. That kind of bullshit has no place in the free world.

foundit66 · 03-10-2006, 08:48 PM

First things first. The Geneva Convention DOES apply. Period.
Even the White House has admitted as such.
The point of contest would be whether or not they qualify as POW's, which would signify WHAT PORTION of the "Geneva Convention" would apply to these "combatants".

==================================================
While the Third Geneva Convention details the protections to which POWs are entitled, the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) stipulates different protections for "civilian persons in a time of war," as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) -- the organization that pioneered the concept of international humanitarian law and has monitored compliance with the Geneva Conventions for more than 140 years -- has argued that the so-called "unlawful enemy combatants" currently detained at Guantánamo Bay are entitled to protections under GCIV. Its 2003 legal analysis titled "The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants" concluded that "unlawful combatants" are entitled to "the right to 'humane treatment' as defined in Articles 27 and 37 [of GCIV], and thus the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment; as well as the fair trial rights contained in Articles 71-76 [of GCIV]."

Indeed, even the Bush administration has acknowledged that detainees who are not POWs may still deserve other protections under the Geneva Conventions, though it has not specifically invoked GCIV. Contrary to Time's suggestion, the administration has distinguished between Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees with respect to the conventions. On May 7, 2003, the White House announced that the conventions do apply to suspected Taliban detainees, but not suspected Al Qaeda:

President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists. Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.

In debating the classification of the Guantánamo detainees, the ICRC has repeatedly cited its 1958 analysis of GCIV, which asserted that under international law, all detainees are either POWs, civilians, or medical personnel -- regardless of whether a particular leader or country chooses to apply a particular term to them:

Every 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] 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 fall outside the law. (Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 195

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506060005

foundit66 · 03-10-2006, 08:49 PM

Falsehood #2: All Guantánamo detainees are confirmed terrorists

Numerous media figures have stated or suggested that the prisoners held at Guantánamo are all terrorists. On the June 21, 2004, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated, "From what I understand, they had -- they took most of [the Guantánamo detainees], like 95 percent of them, off the battlefield, number one. So what the heck were they doing there?"

More recently, Fox host John Gibson asserted that "We have 520 terrorists where we want them, with our boot on their neck." [Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, 6/15/05]

But the Pentagon's decision to release numerous Guantánamo detainees suggests that many were not terrorists. In a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Matthew Waxman reportedly wrote that, as of April 2005, "167 [Guantánamo] prisoners had been released and 67 had been transferred to the custody of other countries." The 167 detainees released were presumably found not to be terrorists, as in the cases of Abdul Rahim and Mamdouh Habib. Both men were captured in Pakistan following September 11, 2001. The U.S. later transferred them to Guantánamo, where they remained for more than two years, accused -- but never charged -- of involvement in terrorist activities. In 2005, the United States released them without charge.

Falsehood #3: The Geneva Conventions apply only to prisoners of war

Numerous media figures have defended the harsh treatment of Guantánamo detainees by claiming that the Geneva Conventions apply exclusively to prisoners of war (POWs). Though many legal scholars agree that Al Qaeda detainees are not entitled to POW status under the Third Geneva Convention, which details protections specifically for POWs, the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) grants different protections to non-POWs.

But the U.S. Army's own field manual states that GCIV protects "all persons who have engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct but who are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war."

Even the White House has acknowledged that the Geneva Conventions grant protections to some detainees who are not POWs. On May 7, 2003, the White House announced that President Bush had revised his earlier determination and decided that the conventions would apply to the suspected Taliban (but not Al Qaeda) detainees held at Guantánamo even though they are not POWs. Then-press secretary Ari Fleischer explained:

FLEISCHER: Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention. Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status.

Falsehood #4: Enemy combatants do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention

Some conservatives have disputed whether the Guantánamo detainees even qualify for protections under GCIV. Their common argument is that GCIV applies specifically to civilians, thereby excluding so-called "illegal enemy combatants."

Again, the Army's field manual recognizes GCIV protections for non-POWs "engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct."

Further, the ICRC -- the organization that pioneered the concept of international humanitarian law and has monitored compliance with the Geneva Conventions for more than 140 years -- concluded in a 2003 legal analysis that "unlawful combatants" are entitled to protections under GCIV, citing its 1958 analysis of GCIV, which stated:

Every 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] 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 fall outside the law. (Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 195

Falsehood #5: Detainees captured on the "battlefield" are not criminal defendants, so they have no right to petition U.S. courts

A June 22 Washington Times editorial warned, "If the critics are right, and detained terrorists have an inalienable right to access U.S. courts, then they have created a new standard -- one which has no precedent in the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution or U.S. history."

But it is not merely "critics" who have taken the position that the detainees "have access to U.S. courts"; the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detentions in federal court. In Rasul v. Bush (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=03-334), the high court ruled that the "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay."

Conservatives also have attempted to paint opponents of the Bush administration's detention policy as advocates of granting detainees the full due process rights that U.S. citizens enjoy. The Times, for example, referred to "the current effort to treat Guantanamo detainees like American criminals, with full access to our courts." In fact, while "critics" have frequently argued that detainees must have some legal recourse to challenge their detention, Media Matters for America found no instances of human rights groups or elected officials arguing that the detainees have the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens or that they deserve the same treatment as "American criminals."
http://www.islamawareness.net/Persec...namo/top5.html

foundit66 · 03-10-2006, 08:51 PM

And out of all these responses, I can't help but wonder how comfortable we would be in cases where the shoe is on the other foot...

How about if THEY would have any of OUR soldiers in captivity?

Would we be comfortable with them saying that the Geneva convention doesn't apply?
Would we be comfortable with them saying that our soldiers don't deserve POW status?

foundit66 · 03-10-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

First, lets clear up this misguided notion about the term "Enemy Combatants". It was not made up by President Bush or anyone in the Bush administration. The term dates to 1942 and decision by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin.

Its is from this ruling that the decision to hold members of terrorist groups like al-Queda and the Taliban originated. The Court held that lawful combatants were deemed prisoners of war and afforded the protection under Article 3 of the Geneva convention. The court also found that unlawful combatants were not entitled to prisoner of war status. Furthermore, the Geneva Convention in Article 5 states that any persons who status is uncertain will be treated as a Prisoner of War and afforded the same rights under Article 3. However, members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban fail to qualify as prisoners of war, thus, their status has been termed Enemy Combatant in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in 1942 Ex Parte Quirin.

You're leaving a LOT out about this case Sarge...

First, it predates the Geneva Convention.

Second, it's legality has never really been addressed in an INTERNATIONAL purview. (At least that I can see.) I realize some may be comfortable with Americans deciding how Americans should treat other country's citizens, but I think a little bit about a bigger picture than just that...

Third, it involved a case of people who committed a crime on U.S. SOIL, and they were taken into custody on U.S SOIL. As opposed to people captured by U.S. troops who have invaded and/or acting on SOME OTHER COUNTRY'S turf...
I find that difference rather significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

Fourth, did I mention that this case PREDATES THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
Ergo, the Geneva Convention, if applicable, would SUPERCEDE this case and make it moot.

Quote:

1942 Quirin case
The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law[2]. The Bush administration seems to have appropriated the concept of "unlawful combatants" from a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin, through which it was introduced into US domestic law.[9] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the war on terror protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed.[10][11][12] A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states:

The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[13]
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US domestic law. The court cases which are currently making their way through the US judicial system should clarify the US administration's domestic legal position and its international treaty obligations.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Bush IS the first person to try and apply this term, first used to describe SABOTEURS acting on AMERICAN soil to actual "war" conflict.
(Using "war" from Bush's own classification of "War on Terror".)

prescott911 · 03-11-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

You keep ignoring the laws. Your feel good semantics is noble. Unfortunately, the law des consider feelings. Members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda do not fall under the characterization of prisoners of war. Instead they fall under the classification of unlawful combatants. The Supreme Court of the United States has deemed unlawful combatants as Enemy Combatants.

In either case, combatants do not classify as criminals unless they can be proven to have commited war crimes. It is only then that they require a trial or tribunal of any sort. The Geneva Convention allows for the holding of combatants until the cease of hostilities.

People keep using the word indefinite. Until one of the Gitmo prisoners has been held longer than 7 years, your words are mere rhetoric. During the Vietnam War there were prisoners who had been held for 5, 6 and 7 years. No one at Gitmo is even remotely close to that time frame.

First you accused the administration of making up the word. An assertion I proved false.

Then you accused the administration of not abiding by the law. Once again an assertion I proved to be false.

Now all ou have left are your feel good feelings and rhetoric. Face it, you lack merit and truly have no real argument other than you don't like it. The facts and the laws are against you.

dmk

So are you agreeing with me??

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

You keep ignoring the laws. Your feel good semantics is noble. Unfortunately, the law des consider feelings. Members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda do not fall under the characterization of prisoners of war. Instead they fall under the classification of unlawful combatants. The Supreme Court of the United States has deemed unlawful combatants as Enemy Combatants.

In either case, combatants do not classify as criminals unless they can be proven to have commited war crimes. It is only then that they require a trial or tribunal of any sort. The Geneva Convention allows for the holding of combatants until the cease of hostilities.

People keep using the word indefinite. Until one of the Gitmo prisoners has been held longer than 7 years, your words are mere rhetoric. During the Vietnam War there were prisoners who had been held for 5, 6 and 7 years. No one at Gitmo is even remotely close to that time frame.

First you accused the administration of making up the word. An assertion I proved false.

Then you accused the administration of not abiding by the law. Once again an assertion I proved to be false.

Now all ou have left are your feel good feelings and rhetoric. Face it, you lack merit and truly have no real argument other than you don't like it. The facts and the laws are against you.

dmk

If this is truely the "War on Terror" then they are cetainly POW's and deserve to be told what they are charged of and receive a fair trial.

Having the Bush administration define what these people are to avoid law is bullshit and I find your personal morals questionable since you are clearly defending these actions.

Sorry but, POWs are not criminals so they have no reason to be tried. POWs are merely just forces of the enemy that a military has caught from surrendering or acts like that. they have no reason to be tried. show me one law or instance where POWs have been tried, cuz i havent heard of one or found one. However war criminals like sgtdmski said can be tried if they have evidence. Why would any nation want to release its enemies??

prescott911 · 03-11-2006, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And out of all these responses, I can't help but wonder how comfortable we would be in cases where the shoe is on the other foot...

How about if THEY would have any of OUR soldiers in captivity?

Would we be comfortable with them saying that the Geneva convention doesn't apply?
Would we be comfortable with them saying that our soldiers don't deserve POW status?

What do you believe POW status means?? What it means basically is that we cannot torture or harm those who have been caught or surrendered once we have done so, I know there has been torture. After that it means that the POWs are allowed to practice whatver religious beliefs they may have, which we have done VERY well in all of our prisons. lastly it means that we have to release the POWs once the war is over, the war is over. the geneva does indirectly say that POWs cannot be held indefinitely but it also says that the specified amount of time that a POW can be held is until the war is officially over.

prescott911 · 03-11-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

First, lets clear up this misguided notion about the term "Enemy Combatants". It was not made up by President Bush or anyone in the Bush administration. The term dates to 1942 and decision by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin.

Its is from this ruling that the decision to hold members of terrorist groups like al-Queda and the Taliban originated. The Court held that lawful combatants were deemed prisoners of war and afforded the protection under Article 3 of the Geneva convention. The court also found that unlawful combatants were not entitled to prisoner of war status. Furthermore, the Geneva Convention in Article 5 states that any persons who status is uncertain will be treated as a Prisoner of War and afforded the same rights under Article 3. However, members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban fail to qualify as prisoners of war, thus, their status has been termed Enemy Combatant in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in 1942 Ex Parte Quirin.

You're leaving a LOT out about this case Sarge...

First, it predates the Geneva Convention.

Second, it's legality has never really been addressed in an INTERNATIONAL purview. (At least that I can see.) I realize some may be comfortable with Americans deciding how Americans should treat other country's citizens, but I think a little bit about a bigger picture than just that...

Third, it involved a case of people who committed a crime on U.S. SOIL, and they were taken into custody on U.S SOIL. As opposed to people captured by U.S. troops who have invaded and/or acting on SOME OTHER COUNTRY'S turf...
I find that difference rather significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

Fourth, did I mention that this case PREDATES THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
Ergo, the Geneva Convention, if applicable, would SUPERCEDE this case and make it moot.

Quote:

1942 Quirin case
The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law[2]. The Bush administration seems to have appropriated the concept of "unlawful combatants" from a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin, through which it was introduced into US domestic law.[9] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the war on terror protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed.[10][11][12] A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states:

The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[13]
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US domestic law. The court cases which are currently making their way through the US judicial system should clarify the US administration's domestic legal position and its international treaty obligations.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Bush IS the first person to try and apply this term, first used to describe SABOTEURS acting on AMERICAN soil to actual "war" conflict.
(Using "war" from Bush's own classification of "War on Terror".)

howcome you didnt reply to my post when I said almost exactly the same thing as sgtdmski

prescott911 · 03-11-2006, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prescott911

during the vietnam war, one of our US Senate members John McCain was shot down as some of you might know. after being shot down McCain was taken prisoner by the Vietcong. he was kept there for almost 6 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...POW_McCain.jpg

That is him when he got out, after being tortured. He was released when the war was over in 1973.

"members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause" -- Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Part 1 , Article 3, Statement 1

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

it says "ARMED FORCES" so that means any force that has taken arms against your army or government i.e. enemy combatants. Armed forces generally refers to forces of an enemy nation i.e. soldiers, which could be the reason why they didnt want to use the term armed forces. for example, for those of you that still dont get it or are pigheaded, when people speak of america's armed forces they mean the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines that defend our constitution. but this is just an assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

enemy combatant, well synonyms for it have been around since the 1940s. according to this article atleast.

The geneva convention also states the following:

"Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities"--SECTION II
RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES
Article 118

Read that. I posted this one page 2

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode