Despite claiming to respect the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge the Guantanamo Bay detainees' POW status; instead it has assigned them an obscure legal status. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld stated, they are "unlawful combatants . . . technically, unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."
This obscure and undefined term has no legal status under the Geneva Conventions but facilitates the administration's claims that the detainees are not protected under the Third 1949 Convention. Even though substantial evidence supports the detainees' POW status, the administration refuses to convene competent tribunals to resolve the question. At the same time, the Bush administration has successfully argued in U.S. courts that U.S. law does not protect the detainees because they are not on U.S. soil. This leaves the detainees in a legal limbo with access to only those protections the administration decides apply.
ICRC hits back at US Senate report, saying it's part of smear campaign
GENEVA, June 17 (AFP) - The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross hit back at a report by US Republican senators, saying it aimed to discredit the humanitarian organization by spreading false accusations.
The report -- entitled "Are US Interests Disserved by the International Committee of the Red Cross?" -- was published Monday.
While it said the ICRC "deserves praise and recognition" for helping save American lives during two world wars and for delivering relief to hundreds of thousands of people around the world, it also contained a string of charges against the organisation.
The ICRC should be called to account for working against US interests and seeking to boost protection for terrorists, it said.
"The report's purpose appears to be to discredit the ICRC by putting forward false allegations and unsubstantiated accusations," said ICRC president Jakob Kellenberger.
The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions on the protection of prisoners of war and civilians hit by conflict.
As such, its staff regularly visit prisoners held by the US military in Iraq, as well as the hundreds of suspected terrorists in custody at the US naval facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Kellenberger and other top ICRC members have also met with senior US officials, including President George W. Bush.
"The US government and the ICRC have good and trustful relations," said Kellenberger.
"The ICRC is not -- and does not feel -- above criticism and is open to constructive dialogue with those who have different opinions. However, dialogue does not appear to be the primary objective of the authors of the (report)."
The ICRC has a longstanding tradition of confidentiality, but extracts from its reports criticizing the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo emerged in the press last year, provoking the ire of US conservatives.
The Senate report claims that the ICRC set out to "inaccurately and unfairly accuse the US of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions."
CONTINUED AT,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050617/pl_afp/icrcuscriticism
Despite claiming to respect the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge the Guantanamo Bay detainees' POW status; instead it has assigned them an obscure legal status. [/size]
As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld stated[/u], they are "unlawful combatants . . . technically, unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."
This obscure and undefined term has no legal status under the Geneva Conventions but facilitates the administration's claims that the detainees are not protected under the Third 1949 Convention. Even though substantial evidence supports the detainees' POW status, the administration refuses to convene competent tribunals to resolve the question.
At the same time, the Bush administration has successfully argued in U.S. courts that U.S. law does not protect the detainees because they are not on U.S. soil. This leaves the detainees in a legal limbo with access to only those protections the administration decides apply.
Despite claiming to respect the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge the Guantanamo Bay detainees' POW status; instead it has assigned them an obscure legal status.
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - John F Kennedy
pinchehoto wrote:
Justice or Protection?
Ok, Mr. President, let them go. And after you have let go the people that our best intelligence agencies have deemed the most statistically likely to conduct the next attack, you better have a good explaination if they ever do conduct an attack. You are responsible for the lives of you countrymen as well as their liberty.
Damn it sucks to be the leader.
The detainees are not charged with thoughtcrime. They are not charged with anything. This is a military action, not a civil one. Military strategists do not care who *did* attack us as much as they care about who is *going* to attack us.
First point:
Good point. Seems to be damned if you do and damned if you don't. Best point I, personally, have seen thus far.
However, if this was a military action on American citizens Martial Law would have to be enacted and habeus corpus would need to be suspended.
This has not been done - as a president if you are not upholding the constitution, you are not doing your job, you are liable for prosecution, and are against everything this thing we call America stands for. We cannot definitely break the law, do immoral things, and suspend the constitution in order to prevent what might happen.
TF
Lol - however, you will not be imprisoned until you have either pleaded guilty, or been tried.
That is a truly ridiculous post, Tico, logically and a few other ways.
Just as a starter you assume the conclusion you are arguing for in your premise.
Whether these people have committed any crime is exactly what is moot.
thethinkfactory wrote:To be a terrorist - you have to be tried and convicted.
We only have detainee's right now being treated as terrorists.
TF
Don't be ridiculous ... if I head out right now and rob the McDonald's down the street, I'm a robber. And I'll be a robber whether or not I'm tried and convicted.
We have detainee's right now that might be terrorists who are being treated as terrorists.
Lol - I shal leave aside that argument - what I was actually arguing was Tico's assumption that all detainees are terrorists.
Tico -
1) I agree, that, if indeed we did know that they were terrorists, they would be terrorists, and certain rights of thiers, perhaps even thier right to life could be suspended.
2) #1 could only be true in the case of Gitmo if we were infallible in our evidence gathering as humans. Because we are not we hold trials to 'prove' within what humans are capable of judging (reasonable doubt must be aside).
2a) We know 2 to be false merely by seeing that some gitmo detainees have been released. This proves that these detainees were not guilty nor could be found guilty in any court of law.
3) Even when arrested, in cases of civil courts and military courts, arrestees are given MORE rights that most not arestees are not given. (Right to trial, free councel, keeping silent, and the like - this differs a bit in the military - but not enough to say that thier rights are suspended).
4) What, in effect the interpretation of 'enemy combatant' has done is suspend all of these rights and claim that by simply arresting these people we have perfect knowledge that they have done something bad enough to warrant detention indefinitely and right suspension.
5) #4 is unamerican, unconstitutional, immoral, and goes beyond any epistemological claim ever before made by an institution in America.
6) #5 is true simply because we are allowing lawyers to make a sophistic style argument that is not interested in the truth - merely advantage.
engineer wrote:One key point for me is that Gitmo is not creating progress in the WoT, it is causing us to take hits. Gitmo is a very real liability in the "hearts and minds" part of the war.
Or maybe it's people like you bringing everyone's attention to it that has that effect. It would certainly be possible for us to quietly clean up our act. Having week after week of front page coverage about Abu Ghraib in the "NY Times," but barely a mention when an American hostage is beheaded is probably a big part of what's responsible for causing us to "take hits." They present the American abuses in prisoner interrogation as though they were terribly unusual, whereas the same thing has probably happened in every single war since the dawn of time. Fix the abuses and punish those responsible, but don't assist the enemy in using it for propaganda.
engineer wrote:
Just to be clear, beheading hostages is as evil as possible. Anyone who finds that is being done in their name needs to speak up loudly and clearly that they do not condone it.
What is happening in Cuba is being done in my name. I expect my government to treat those in its custody humanely. No luxury suites, but no peeing on them through ventilation ducts either. I really don't care if no government in the history of mankind as met that standard, I expect the US to do so. I expect my government to allow those imprisioned to question their detention at a hearing and to see the evidence against them. I expect this to be done in a reasonable amount of time and those who we cannot build a reasonable case against to go free.
Me too, but what would you say about some American living through the Revolutionary War who showed not the tiniest interest in the war except to criticize American abuse of British prisoners? I would find such a thing very odd, even though I believe that the British prisoners ought to have been treated humanely.
engineer wrote:I understand that we may occasionally let a bad guy get away. Better that than holding innocent people without a hearing, without recourse, without contact.
What if such a person assists a chain of events which eventually leads to the release by Al Qaeda of a bioweapon in New York City? I suspect that you will never give a direct answer to this question.
engineer wrote:I know, you don't think any of them are innocent.
It would probably facilitate this discussion if you skimmed my posts before answering them. I said that the innocent ones should be released.
engineer wrote:Show me the evidence, and I'll be with you. Ask me to take your word and I think something is wrong. I expect my government to be completely happy with judicial review of any action they take. To hide prisoners at Gitmo for the express purpose of evading the US courts is wrong...
They ought never to appear in any civil court, only military tribunals. This is military not civil justice. Imagine the chaos and harm to our effort in WW2 if every German and Japanese prisoner of war were able to appear in an American court as though he were suspected of committing a domestic crime. In fact, as far as I know, none of them was granted that right.
They're not POWs; they're terrorists. And Geneva conventions do not apply to terrorists or spies and the like. The normal means of treating spies and terrorists has always been to get any information you can out of them, and then either kill them or somehow use them as trade goods. That's universal; it's always been that way, everywhere. Anything better than that, including the treatment that the AlQuaeda terrorist a$$holes are receiving in Guantanimo, is better than they deserve.
How about the ignorance of fifty million voters who actually voted for the gigolo/shyster tandem of Kerry and Edwards?
Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:One key point for me is that Gitmo is not creating progress in the WoT, it is causing us to take hits. Gitmo is a very real liability in the "hearts and minds" part of the war.
Or maybe it's people like you bringing everyone's attention to it that has that effect. It would certainly be possible for us to quietly clean up our act. Having week after week of front page coverage about Abu Ghraib in the "NY Times," but barely a mention when an American hostage is beheaded is probably a big part of what's responsible for causing us to "take hits." They present the American abuses in prisoner interrogation as though they were terribly unusual, whereas the same thing has probably happened in every single war since the dawn of time. Fix the abuses and punish those responsible, but don't assist the enemy in using it for propaganda.
The reason Gitmo is harming our efforts in the WoT is that it is in the press everywhere in the world daily and is used to beat us over the head and to dismiss any positive effort we make. The NYT is the least of our concerns. (I don't read it, but I'd be very surprised if beheadings are not covered in the Times. It is certainly covered extensively on all news outlets I follow, including those overseas.)
Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:
Just to be clear, beheading hostages is as evil as possible. Anyone who finds that is being done in their name needs to speak up loudly and clearly that they do not condone it.
What is happening in Cuba is being done in my name. I expect my government to treat those in its custody humanely. No luxury suites, but no peeing on them through ventilation ducts either. I really don't care if no government in the history of mankind as met that standard, I expect the US to do so. I expect my government to allow those imprisioned to question their detention at a hearing and to see the evidence against them. I expect this to be done in a reasonable amount of time and those who we cannot build a reasonable case against to go free.
Me too, but what would you say about some American living through the Revolutionary War who showed not the tiniest interest in the war except to criticize American abuse of British prisoners? I would find such a thing very odd, even though I believe that the British prisoners ought to have been treated humanely.
Sure, that would be odd, but that is not an accurate analogy to the situation in Gitmo. If a 1776 patriot came across some soliders abusing prisoners, made them stop, then continued the fight, that is more accurate. Let's handle the situation in Gitmo using the best principle of our country, then get back to the fight.
Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:I understand that we may occasionally let a bad guy get away. Better that than holding innocent people without a hearing, without recourse, without contact.
What if such a person assists a chain of events which eventually leads to the release by Al Qaeda of a bioweapon in New York City? I suspect that you will never give a direct answer to this question.
I'll give you a direct answer. Fear does not direct my actions. I have not been so intimidated by the WTC attack that I am willing to give up all rights for security. In the extremely unlikely case that someone who was arrested for jay walking and released kills the President, I'm not going to blame myself and sign away all the freedoms that we enjoy to ensure it doesn't happen again. Likewise, if we have no evidence to hold someone and it later turns out that they participate in a plot to release a bioweapon in NYC, I'm still not going to scream that we should have done differently. Remember, today it is an Arab we arrested far away, tomorrow it is the Arab who lives in your neighborhood. Next year, it's you. Arrest for cause, imprisionment with proof.
Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:I know, you don't think any of them are innocent.
It would probably facilitate this discussion if you skimmed my posts before answering them. I said that the innocent ones should be released.
It's one thing to say it, and another to mean it. If you aren't outraged that it's taken three years to hold hearings for these prisoners, I can't see how you mean it. I've voted Republican for president since Reagan, but I didn't vote for Bush last time because he clearly doesn't understand the principles of the Republic. We incarcerated Japanese Americans out of fear in WWII. Everyone looked back and said we did the wrong thing. Fear is driving us that direction again.
Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:Show me the evidence, and I'll be with you. Ask me to take your word and I think something is wrong. I expect my government to be completely happy with judicial review of any action they take. To hide prisoners at Gitmo for the express purpose of evading the US courts is wrong...
They ought never to appear in any civil court, only military tribunals. This is military not civil justice. Imagine the chaos and harm to our effort in WW2 if every German and Japanese prisoner of war were able to appear in an American court as though he were suspected of committing a domestic crime. In fact, as far as I know, none of them was granted that right.
I can live with that as long as the tribunals are open. What hurts us in Gitmo is not that we are holding prisoners, it is that we are so secretitive about it.
engineer wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:One key point for me is that Gitmo is not creating progress in the WoT, it is causing us to take hits. Gitmo is a very real liability in the "hearts and minds" part of the war.
Or maybe it's people like you bringing everyone's attention to it that has that effect. It would certainly be possible for us to quietly clean up our act. Having week after week of front page coverage about Abu Ghraib in the "NY Times," but barely a mention when an American hostage is beheaded is probably a big part of what's responsible for causing us to "take hits." They present the American abuses in prisoner interrogation as though they were terribly unusual, whereas the same thing has probably happened in every single war since the dawn of time. Fix the abuses and punish those responsible, but don't assist the enemy in using it for propaganda.
The reason Gitmo is harming our efforts in the WoT is that it is in the press everywhere in the world daily and is used to beat us over the head and to dismiss any positive effort we make. The NYT is the least of our concerns. (I don't read it, but I'd be very surprised if beheadings are not covered in the Times. It is certainly covered extensively on all news outlets I follow, including those overseas.)
Isn't it funny how beheading civilians, and shooting a wounded man trying to surrender in a helicopter the insurgents downed isn't hurting their war effort? It's a total double standard. And your idea that trumpeting our abuses from the rooftops, and implying, without evidence, that the abuses are on orders from the top, as some liberals do, is not needlessly harmful to the good guys is naive. Furthermore, on the day when the first of the civilian hostages was beheaded on videotape, I looked at the major Web newspapers and found virtually no mention of it, as compared to weeks of front page headlines on Abu Ghraib in the "Times." Most of us agree that the abuses of the prisoners we are holding are intolerable, but (a) making them so prominent as to give the enemy propaganda material, and (b) having no perspective on the fact that our sins are generally tiny compared to theirs, and (c) seeming to have no interest in America except for gleefully screaming out its shortcomings or setbacks, but never showing any form of support, appreciation, or solidarity is a strange form of patriotism. I am not accusing you, specifically, of this. You don't post in the political area enough for me to know.
engineer wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:
Just to be clear, beheading hostages is as evil as possible. Anyone who finds that is being done in their name needs to speak up loudly and clearly that they do not condone it.
What is happening in Cuba is being done in my name. I expect my government to treat those in its custody humanely. No luxury suites, but no peeing on them through ventilation ducts either. I really don't care if no government in the history of mankind as met that standard, I expect the US to do so. I expect my government to allow those imprisioned to question their detention at a hearing and to see the evidence against them. I expect this to be done in a reasonable amount of time and those who we cannot build a reasonable case against to go free.
Me too, but what would you say about some American living through the Revolutionary War who showed not the tiniest interest in the war except to criticize American abuse of British prisoners? I would find such a thing very odd, even though I believe that the British prisoners ought to have been treated humanely.
Sure, that would be odd, but that is not an accurate analogy to the situation in Gitmo. If a 1776 patriot came across some soliders abusing prisoners, made them stop, then continued the fight, that is more accurate. Let's handle the situation in Gitmo using the best principle of our country, then get back to the fight.
Except the libs here don't say, "back to the fight." In general, what they say is closer to "the demon Bush based his personal crusade on lies and we should pull out now."
engineer wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:I understand that we may occasionally let a bad guy get away. Better that than holding innocent people without a hearing, without recourse, without contact.
What if such a person assists a chain of events which eventually leads to the release by Al Qaeda of a bioweapon in New York City? I suspect that you will never give a direct answer to this question.
I'll give you a direct answer. Fear does not direct my actions. I have not been so intimidated by the WTC attack that I am willing to give up all rights for security. In the extremely unlikely case that someone who was arrested for jay walking and released kills the President, I'm not going to blame myself and sign away all the freedoms that we enjoy to ensure it doesn't happen again. Likewise, if we have no evidence to hold someone and it later turns out that they participate in a plot to release a bioweapon in NYC, I'm still not going to scream that we should have done differently. Remember, today it is an Arab we arrested far away, tomorrow it is the Arab who lives in your neighborhood. Next year, it's you. Arrest for cause, imprisionment with proof.
Fear ought to have some input to your decisions when there is something to fear. A person who does not display self-preservation instinct is a fool. Releasing Al Qaeda members could reasonably be expected to have some probability of assisting in Al Qaeda's goals. Their goal appears to be the destruction of our civilization, together with the murder of many of our people. If you release someone captured in a group of Al Qaeda fighting against us on a battlefield, and he then assists in killing a million Americans in one single event, it would indeed be partially your fault.
All this talk of evidence is misplaced. No one brought captured Axis soldiers into civil, or usually even military, courtrooms during WW2. We just held them and sometimes questioned them.
engineer wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:I know, you don't think any of them are innocent.
It would probably facilitate this discussion if you skimmed my posts before answering them. I said that the innocent ones should be released.
It's one thing to say it, and another to mean it. If you aren't outraged that it's taken three years to hold hearings for these prisoners, I can't see how you mean it. ...
Well, congratulations on being a better expert on my opinions than I am.
engineer wrote:I suppose the NY Times had free access to our prisoners in past wars, right?Brandon9000 wrote:
engineer wrote:Show me the evidence, and I'll be with you. Ask me to take your word and I think something is wrong. I expect my government to be completely happy with judicial review of any action they take. To hide prisoners at Gitmo for the express purpose of evading the US courts is wrong...
They ought never to appear in any civil court, only military tribunals. This is military not civil justice. Imagine the chaos and harm to our effort in WW2 if every German and Japanese prisoner of war were able to appear in an American court as though he were suspected of committing a domestic crime. In fact, as far as I know, none of them was granted that right.
I can live with that as long as the tribunals are open. What hurts us in Gitmo is not that we are holding prisoners, it is that we are so secretitive about it.
JTT, that is pretty funny, the post about the fake conservative winning the conservative contest.
What a weird contest to hold forth in all seriousness.
gungasnake wrote:How about the ignorance of fifty million voters who actually voted for the gigolo/shyster tandem of Kerry and Edwards?
We weren't ignorant. While I didn't love Kerry, I knew what I had in Bush and knew I didn't like it. Many of my conservative, Christian relatives felt the same.
