To start with, we are told that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are "unlawful combatants" and not deserving of the same rights as others captured during times of war.
There is NO SUCH THING, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, as an unlawful combatant.
It is a term made up by the Bush administration in an attempt to skirt, IMO, laws written to protect people from abuse and torture.
The men held at Guantanamo MUST be categorized either as prisoners of war, or charged with crimes and afforded the same rights and protections that a US citizen would be afforded in the US court system.
If you disagree with this, please supply proof that the term "unlawful combatant" exists within the aforementioned international law. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention is pasted below, for your perusal. Feel free to consult the rest of the document in order to find any mention of "unlawful combatant".
.......................................................................................................
ARTICLE 4 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:
<snip>
......................................................................................................
.......
Now, there are certainly enough conditions there to include most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Even if they do NOT fall into those categories, they are entitled to certain rights. The most common interpretations of that is entitlement to the same rights as a citizen in the country in which they are being held.
So, do you STILL think that no laws have been transgressed, Oralloy?
Unless of course, you think that the Geneva Convention is only a law that should be used as and when it suits the USA.
ARTICLE 4 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:
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.
as we say out here in the old west "Pissing in the wind"
which is "leased" from what the USA considers to be a country that poses such a threat to America, it merits a full trade embargo.
To start with, we are told that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are "unlawful combatants" and not deserving of the same rights as others captured during times of war.
There is NO SUCH THING, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, as an unlawful combatant.
The men held at Guantanamo MUST be categorized either as prisoners of war, or charged with crimes and afforded the same rights and protections that a US citizen would be afforded in the US court system.
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.
......................................................................................................
.......Now, there are certainly enough conditions there to include most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Even if they do NOT fall into those categories, they are entitled to certain rights. The most common interpretations of that is entitlement to the same rights as a citizen in the country in which they are being held.
So, do you STILL think that no laws have been transgressed, Oralloy?
Certainly regardless their status, they are entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable protection from harm, but they by their conduct qualify for no more; they by definition are not military, militia, or either organized or unorganized lawful resitance fighters, in no way do they meet the requirements necessary to warrant being deemed "lawful combatants", they by definition are criminals - war criminals, in fact. Though they complain about being detained, and about the conditions of their detainment, they, and their defenders, should be mindful they are alive to be detained.
Lord Ellpus wrote:To start with, we are told that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are "unlawful combatants" and not deserving of the same rights as others captured during times of war.
There is NO SUCH THING, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, as an unlawful combatant.
It is a term made up by the Bush administration in an attempt to skirt, IMO, laws written to protect people from abuse and torture.
The men held at Guantanamo MUST be categorized either as prisoners of war, or charged with crimes and afforded the same rights and protections that a US citizen would be afforded in the US court system.
If you disagree with this, please supply proof that the term "unlawful combatant" exists within the aforementioned international law. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention is pasted below, for your perusal. Feel free to consult the rest of the document in order to find any mention of "unlawful combatant".
.......................................................................................................
ARTICLE 4 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:
<snip>
......................................................................................................
.......
Now, there are certainly enough conditions there to include most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Even if they do NOT fall into those categories, they are entitled to certain rights. The most common interpretations of that is entitlement to the same rights as a citizen in the country in which they are being held.
So, do you STILL think that no laws have been transgressed, Oralloy?
Unless of course, you think that the Geneva Convention is only a law that should be used as and when it suits the USA.
Lets just take a look at what you cite, Lord E -
Quote:ARTICLE 4 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:
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.
Now, while the detainees at discussion might at a stretch be termed "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", they do not meet the requirements as set forth below:
" ... provided such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(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"
The detainees, predominately taken while under arms on the field of battle, were jihadists and consanguine thugs who wear no uniform or fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,who do not bear arms openly but rather, in mufti, disquise themselves as civilians, concealing their arms, their affilliation, and their intent largely except when actively engaged in hostile activity, which action itself is in material breach of the "laws and customs of war", and in further material breach of the "laws and customs of war", they and their criminal ilk conduct operations not only with indiscriminate disregard for the safety and wellbeing of uninvolved civilians and civilian infrastructure, they consciously and callously target uninvolved civilians and civilian infrasatructure.
Quote: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.
Likewise here, the jihadists and their ilk fail to qualify as lawful combatants and thus fail to qualify for Prisoner of War status consequent to their clandestine military nature and their operational disregard for the laws and customs of war particularly as pertain to civilian populace and infrastructure. They are "unlawful combatants" in that they take up arms and engage in hostile activity contrary to the "laws and customs of war". They by definition are criminals. In times not so long past, rather than be detained, they well might have been deemed guilty of being spies, criminal saboteurs, deserters, and/or of committing a bevy of other illegal activities, and, under the internationally recognized provisions of martial law, be executed out of hand.
Certainly regardless their status, they are entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable protection from harm, but they by their conduct qualify for no more; they by definition are not military, militia, or either organized or unorganized lawful resitance fighters, in no way do they meet the requirements necessary to warrant being deemed "lawful combatants", they by definition are criminals - war criminals, in fact. Though they complain about being detained, and about the conditions of their detainment, they, and their defenders, should be mindful they are alive to be detained.
Well Children,
1. Anyone with a fully functioning brain and sufficent knowledge of the facts support the Iraq war.
2. Because SOME of the troops want to leave before the job is done most certainly does NOT mean most are that clueless.
3. It is NOT a function of supporting Bush. It is a function of having sufficent knowledge of the facts.
I am an independent, an Atheist and a Vet. So I am most certainly not a Neo-con or a Republican. And the ONLY reason I am not in Iraq now doing what I could to defeat the terrorists, is at age 71, they will not let me.
Neil C. Reinhardt
HELLO, Oh Clueless Ones, the Geneva Convention was NOT written when we had this problem and DOES NOT APPLY!
DUH!
Neil C. Reinhardt
timberlandko wrote:Certainly regardless their status, they are entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable protection from harm, but they by their conduct qualify for no more; they by definition are not military, militia, or either organized or unorganized lawful resitance fighters, in no way do they meet the requirements necessary to warrant being deemed "lawful combatants", they by definition are criminals - war criminals, in fact. Though they complain about being detained, and about the conditions of their detainment, they, and their defenders, should be mindful they are alive to be detained.
Although Geneva IV is primarily about protecting civilians, it covers the detention of unlawful combatants.
Excerpt of article 5:
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
Excerpt of Article 42:
The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.
Immediatley prior to their capture, they were in full and open battle, "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (Article 4 : 2D)
As far as 2B is concerned (the one that is usually interpreted as the need to wear a uniform), they were certainly recognisable from a distance. Their does not appear to be any intent to deceive their enemy on these occasions, as they were engaged in open warfare.
The MAJORITY of the Gitmo detainees were NOT spies or saboteurs. Neither were they war criminals. If you disagree with this, please provide evidence.
"Cuba isn't a threat. There are just a bunch of rabid Castro-haters in the Miami area"
....."Well, the term isn't mentioned in the Geneva Conventions, but the term is used to cover a class of people created by the Geneva Conventions (namely, any soldier who fails to qualify for Geneva 3 protections)."
"I think war criminals are typically tried in military tribunals such as a court marshal."
" Also, "prisoner of war" refers specifically to those who qualify for Geneva 3. If a captured soldier fails to qualify, they can still be held until the end of the war. "
"Geneva 4 allows such people to be detained incommunicado for the security of the state."
