Guantanamo suicides confirmed

Can you show me where the Geneva convention prohibits that prisoners be tried by civilian courts?

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

Both Bradford Berenson and Daniel Collins, highly trained attornies, agree that the government's side will prevail and that the US will be allowed to use military tribunals in cases such as Hamdan's.

Thats because the Geneva Convention specifically says that prisoners taken by the military are to be tried ONLY by military tribunals.

Apparently,some of you have not read the GC.

Can you show me where the Geneva convention prohibits that prisoners be tried by civilian courts?

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Internees shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

Most of the Muslim countries are NOT bound by or signatories to the GC.

And for those of you that want the prisoners moved to a regular prison,the GC doesnt allow that.
I refer you to Article 124,which states...

Article 124

The national Information Bureaux and the Central Information Agency shall enjoy free postage for mail, likewise all the exemptions provided for in Article 74, and further, so far as possible, exemption from telegraphic charges or, at least, greatly reduced rates.

Internees shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

So,as you can plainly see,the prisoners in Gitmo can ONLY be tried by military courts,because right now the law does not allow the prisoners to be tried by civilian courts.

Most of the Muslim countries are NOT bound by or signatories to the GC.

In response to your original question,here is your answer.

It can be found in Chapter 3,article 84 of the GC.

Here is what it says...

Quote:

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

So,as you can plainly see,the prisoners in Gitmo can ONLY be tried by military courts,because right now the law does not allow the prisoners to be tried by civilian courts.

mysteryman wrote:

Most of the Muslim countries are NOT bound by or signatories to the GC.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the litigant in the current Supreme Court case, is a citizen of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a signatory of the Geneva convention. (Source (PDF))

mysteryman wrote:

And for those of you that want the prisoners moved to a regular prison,the GC doesnt allow that.
I refer you to Article 124,which states...

The authors of the Geneva Convention, as reproduced in mysteryman's link, wrote:

Article 124

The national Information Bureaux and the Central Information Agency shall enjoy free postage for mail, likewise all the exemptions provided for in Article 74, and further, so far as possible, exemption from telegraphic charges or, at least, greatly reduced rates.

In other words, article 124 of the Geneva Convention does not say what you think it says. Not even close. But even if we assume, for the sake of the discussion, that it did say ...

Quote:

Internees shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

... the consequences wouldn't be what you think they are. The Geneva Convention distinguishes between judicial and disciplinary punishment. Article 82, in particular, states that "[a] prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders. However, no proceedings or punishments contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be allowed. ". Your version of article 124 says nothing about judicial punishment, which is the subject of this case.

mysteryman, quoting article 84 of the Geneva Convention wrote:

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

mysteryman, providing a source and drawing his conclusions, went on and wrote:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

So,as you can plainly see,the prisoners in Gitmo can ONLY be tried by military courts,because right now the law does not allow the prisoners to be tried by civilian courts.

This is not what the Geneva convention says. It says prisoners can be tried by a civilian court if members of the detaining forces could be tried by civilian courts for the same offence. The charge against Hamdan is that he was involved in terrorism against the United States. Can a civilian court sack a member of the US Army if he engages in terrorism against the United States? I think they can, but I admit I'm not familiar enough with US law to know. But given your batting average so far, I am unwilling to take your word that a civilian court couldn't try this hypothetical US soldier.

Article 97

Prisoners of war shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

You are right,I dont know why I said it was article 124.
It was article 97.

Quote:

Article 97

Prisoners of war shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

Article 97

Prisoners of war shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

U.S. soldiers' bodies mutilated, booby-trapped

[size=8]Tuesday, June 20, 2006; Posted: 2:41 p.m. EDT (18:41 GMT)[/size]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The bodies of two U.S. soldiers found in Iraq Monday night were mutilated and booby-trapped, military sources said Tuesday.

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker went missing after a Friday attack on a traffic control checkpoint in Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 km) south of Baghdad.

The sources said the two men had suffered severe trauma.

The bodies also had been desecrated, and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said....

Brandon 9000--I am surprised at you. Don't you know that not only are we supposed to treat them better than they treat our soldiers--we are to give them special Muslim meals--allow them prayer time--give them prayer rugs--etc.etc. or else, as I am sure Snood would say--"we will be no better than they are".

What Snood is not willing to admit, since he is more than likely a partisan who would do almost anything to denigrate President Bush, is that we are so far above them--so infinitely far above them--when we court marshal an American soldier who allowed his dog to get too near a prisoner( for God's sake) or we court marshal a soldier who took nude pictures of the fanatic Fascits Muslims in Abu Ghirab.

In the meantime, Brandon, since we follow the rule of law, our military is court martialling three soldiers who may have killed( they have not been convicted so there is still the presumption of innocence) some Iraqi civilians.

It is a good thing that I am not in charge in any way in Iraq. I would send out some death squads to behead some of those Islamo-Fascists who beheaded( it is rumored) our dear soldiers.

On Iwo Jima, the Marines who could not roust out the Japanese soldiers who were entrenched in caves used satchel charges and flame throwers to burn them alive.

If the left wing today were alive then, they would probably scream---BRUTALITY!

What a sad bunch of Anti-Americans!

I thought the GC didn't apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo.

mysteryman wrote:

Most of the Muslim countries are NOT bound by or signatories to the GC.

According to the ICRC nearly all of the world countries are bound to Geneva Conventions.