Military to Build $100 mi. Courthouse for Guantanamo Trials

I wonder what "Geneva Convention" you have been reading.

Quote:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Source at the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights web site. I made the point about "a competent tribunal." Just because it is convenient for your argument to ignore that doesn't make you correct.

Yes, i know you refuse to see how it covers people whom you are pleased to describe as terrorists. The point of Article 5 is that if there is any doubt about the status of someone who is detained, they are entitled to all the protections which the Conventions afford to prisoners of war, until such time as their status is determined by a competent tribunal. That's why i quoted Article 5. Just because you want to describe someone as a terrorist doesn't mean that they are. Just because it is likely that some of the people at Guantanamo can be described as terrorists doesn't mean they all are terrorists, or were rightly detained. That is my point--unless and until their cases are reviewed by a competent tribunal, you have no way of stating to a certainty that anyone there is or is not a terrorist, and they are therefore entitled to all the provisions of the Conventions with regard to prisoners of war.

And by the way, you continue to ignore that their status has not been determined by a competent tribunal.

Once again, you presume that the people in Guantanamo don't qualify--so i wonder if you have personally investigated the record of the capture of everyone there.

Article 4, Section A, paragraph 6 covers many of the people picked up in Afghanistan:

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.

That's right, i don't trust those sons-of-bitches in the White House. So what? That doesn't change the logic of what i am saying.

Setanta wrote:

Once again, you presume that the people in Guantanamo don't qualify--so i wonder if you have personally investigated the record of the capture of everyone there.

Article 4, Section A, paragraph 6 covers many of the people picked up in Afghanistan:

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.

That's right, i don't trust those sons-of-bitches in the White House. So what? That doesn't change the logic of what i am saying.

They don't fall under article 4.

With any luck they'll be foisted onto a barbed wire fence & then shot.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

With any luck they'll be foisted onto a barbed wire fence & then shot.

it's too bad you're against them, al queda could use someone with your sick mind

So, does that work both ways? If US Coalition soldiers in Iraq were captured, tortured, transported to Iran and detained without trial for several years by Iranian insurgents, would that same justification hold true for them? The coalition doesn't represent any one country either. So would the rules of the Geneva Conventions provide no protection or authority to dictate treatment of coalition soldiers, including US soldiers?

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:
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.
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:[
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
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.
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.
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.

BTW,if US troops were captured by Iranians,asyou suggest,and then taken to Iran,there would be a huge military response.

mysteryman wrote:

BTW,if US troops were captured by Iranians,asyou suggest,and then taken to Iran,there would be a huge military response.

Interesting. So you think the US are right in what they are doing, but if someone else would do it, he would be obliterated - due to American military power.

Or, in other words: might makes right.

If US Coalition soldiers in Iraq were captured, tortured, transported to Iran and detained without trial for several years by Iranian insurgents, would that same justification hold true for them?

provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war

First of all,no UNIFORMED soldiers of any country have been brought to Gitmo,they have all been nonuniformed insurgents.

Murat Kurnaz, 24, who was released in August because of lack of evidence that he was involved in terrorist activities, said he endured many types of torture.

"From electric shocks to having one's head submerged in water, (subjection to) hunger and thirst, or being shackled and suspended," Kurnaz said, listing the alleged abuses he faced while a detainee at Camp X-Ray in Cuba.

"They tell you 'you are from Al-Qaeda' and when you say 'no' they give the (electric) current to your feet.... As you keep saying 'no' this goes on for two or three hours," he said, adding he had several times lost consciousness," Kurnaz said.

He claimed he was once shackled to a ceiling for "four or five days."

"They take you down in the mornings when a doctor comes to see whether you can endure more," he said. "They let you sit when the interrogator comes.... They take you down about three times a day so you do not die."

Kurnaz also alleged prisoners were locked up in cells into which frigid or hot air was pumped.

"I saw several people die," he said. "Sometimes I thought I could no longer stand it and would also die."

He claimed he was once left without food for 20 days and spoke of psychological abuse, including "religious insults" such as the Koran being kicked on the ground.

Arrested, but still no proof of terrorist links

A Turkish citizen with permanent residency in Germany, Kurnaz was arrested in Pakistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks and turned over to US forces, who took him to a prison in the Afghan city of Kandahar before transferring him to Guantanamo in 2002.

He says he went to Pakistan to visit holy places and take religious courses.

You can try and argue that all you want,but since the GC is the final authority on this matter,I will go along with what it says.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.