Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[The Painter]

Look, let's accept that the US is waging a "War Against Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people were taken prisoner by YOUR military in THIS war - they captured them and put them in custody. That makes them YOUR prisoners of war - POWs. Do you, or do you not, have any argument that shows otherwise?

Now if they have done something illegal, they are criminals. Particularly, they are war criminals if they break the rules of conduct of war. The USA has properly prosecuted many war criminals in the past, and hanged them too. Do you, or do you not, have any argument that shows otherwise?

Yes it’s our country (USA) doing this. Yes we (USA) took them prisoners they are POPW’S, not criminals. POW’S are always held prisoners until the end of combat. We don’t need a reason more than they are on the other side. During war, there really are no rules. When it’s over they come into play. We were attacked. England was attack. Spain was attacked. Who is next????????? YOU???????

They would love to kill you Aussies too.

 

[rjh01]

Is this thread part of the humour sub-forum?
The prisoners are not classified by the USA as POWs. As certain people keep on saying that they are classified as POWs I take it that is the level of their knowledge of the situation.
If this was in the politics sub-forum I would expect people who post to be knowledgeable about the subject, but in the humour section ignorance is OK.

 

[The Fool]

2) In real life, some form of corroborating evidence is required before someone winds up in Gitmo.

is that correct? What about all those released because no evidence can be produced. You say it existed when they went in, what happened to it?

 

[Zep]

Yes it’s our country (USA) doing this. Yes we (USA) took them prisoners they are POPW’S, not criminals. POW’S are always held prisoners until the end of combat. We don’t need a reason more than they are on the other side. During war, there really are no rules. When it’s over they come into play. We were attacked. England was attack. Spain was attacked. Who is next????????? YOU???????

They would love to kill you Aussies too.

Clearly you haven't been reading any international reports these last few years. Perhaps it might be advisable to review some past international history before you post again?? For, say, October 2002?

 

[Zep]

I never said anything about capture and kill, or war with Indonesia. I was referencing what happens when you try to try people like this in normal criminal courts, which is what you and the other "usefuls" are always harping about. I am imagining that the Indonesians actually wanted to imprison him, but all they could get him on was some minor technical issues. You know, witnesses and all that, and lying Americans who imprison for "no reason".

Most of the Gitmo crowd would probably be unlucky if they were sentenced just for illegal possesion of an RPG by criminal courts. Time already served. But you would have them released on your fine principles.

[aside]
Tell me: How much longer are you going to go on with these ad hominem and slippery-slope fallacies? Or is it "excluded middle", I'm not sure. Anyway, just so I know when to give up on you, that's all...
[/aside]

Perhaps you might point out where I ever said they should be released based "on my fine principles". I seem to recall that I have even offered a perfectly acceptable recipe for legally keeping them detained for as long as you like. Or even trying and hanging them if they are indeed criminal bastards. Am I writing all this time for people to ignore me?? Sure seems like it...

And you are now agreeing that the Gitmo prisoners WERE abducted and detained WITHOUT sufficient evidence to do so? Well, that's news. I was sure we were told vehemently somewhere that they were all major Al-Quaeda operatives with dangerous knowledge of secrets, burning hatred of anything non-Muslim, lists of victims as long as your arm, and access to huge caches of weapons and explosives. The next 9-11 infiltrators, etc, etc. Stuff like that, y'know?

So what are they likely to be guilty of now? Illegal posession of weapons and ammo, maybe? Sheesh - that describes every third adult male in the Middle East right now. Or the Phillipines. Or Myanmar. Or any hotspot in Africa. Or Moscow. Or an LA street gang for that matter. Why weren't these people picked up too? Oh, that's right - they're not where you wanted to invade.

 

[Zep]

is that correct? What about all those released because no evidence can be produced. You say it existed when they went in, what happened to it?

Clearly it wasn't real life that Mycroft was living in.

 

[Mycroft]

is that correct? What about all those released because no evidence can be produced. You say it existed when they went in, what happened to it?

For example...?

 

[The Fool]

For example...?

For example? all those released so far with no evidence produced....did it vanish?

 

[BPSCG]

cool, I'll denounce you to the CIA and you can have about four years of it...and you would support your own arrest and detention wouldn't you....wouldn't you?

Let's give that a test and see if it works.

list some things that would stop it....

1) The CIA would consider you a nutter and not pay attention to you.

And how would that that make the CIA different from everybody else (*ducks*)?

 

[BPSCG]

Is this thread part of the humour sub-forum?
The prisoners are not classified by the USA as POWs. As certain people keep on saying that they are classified as POWs I take it that is the level of their knowledge of the situation.
If this was in the politics sub-forum I would expect people who post to be knowledgeable about the subject, but in the humour section ignorance is OK.

Note the date; possibly the first (and last time) I agree with rjh01.

It's not accurate to describe these guys as POWs or as criminals. They occupy a nether world somewhere in between, or on another plane entirely; hence the international argument about what to do with them, and also hence the issue's laborious trek through the U.S. justice system.

The problem is, these guys are at war with the U.S., but in many ways, their war doesn't follow the "rules" of warfare that the rest of the world has agreed on. They wear no uniforms, so it is usually nearly impossible to identify their soldiers until it's too late. They operate surreptitiously in the middle of civilian populations, unlike a regular invading/defending army.

And, perhaps most importantly, while they are part of an organization, it is an organization that is not defined by national boundaries. They have not signed on to any international treaties, and thus claim no obligations to any such treaties. And conversely, having excluded themselves from the obligations of any international treaties, they have no claim on the protections of such treaties.

The Geneva Conventions were not designed to deal with such institutions, and neither was any criminal justice system. And they weren't intended to, since the idea of an international confederacy of terrorists was never contemplated at the time the GCs were drafted, and is only gradually being worked into the framework of our criminal justice system.

What this is is a platypus. Those who call a platypus some form of duck are just as mistaken as those who call it a beaver (which is what British scientists thought it was when they examined their first pelt). And those who say these people are POW's are just as mistaken as those who say they are common criminals. They are neither, and we're still trying to figure out a way to balance the demands of domestic tranquility with the demands of justice when dealing with them.

Meanwhile, we've decided that, weighing all the pros and cons, it is, at least for now, better to treat them largely as if they were prisoners of war. It's an ugly situation that upsets the world's common understanding of the way things are supposed to be, and satisfies nobody, but that's what happens when you discover a platypus.

 

[Earthborn]

Well argued, BPSCG. I do however have a few criticisms:

The problem is, these guys are at war with the U.S.

Another problem is that it is nearly impossible for the world outside Guantanamo Bay to check whether the people who are detained are the people the US is at war with. We are simply expected to trust the US that they are, and an authority demanding trust instead of allowing it to be checked is rarely cause for optimism.

They wear no uniforms, so it is usually nearly impossible to identify their soldiers until it's too late.

The times when soldiers wore identifying uniforms so they could be identified as belonging to one side or the other are long gone. Now the most important reason for uniforms is for soldiers to blend in into the environment so they are hard to spot until it's too late, which is why camouflage colours are used.

During the war in former Jugoslavia, the US military was even developing camouflage for urban environments: suits with gray and brown patches to simulate concrete and stone. It worked too, although not as well as camouflage for the jungle that can make a soldier nearly disappear to the human eye.

In a way, Al Qaida terrorists have simply found a much more effective camouflage for urban environments: dress up like ordinary people.

If it is against the rules of warfare to wear clothing that make it hard to notice a soldier before he attacks, then you should argue that Americans should fight in brightly coloured uniforms instead of their desert camouflage. Personally I don't think that's the reason for this rule, but rather that combattants should have something to identify them as soldiers after they have been killed or captured.

And conversely, having excluded themselves from the obligations of any international treaties, they have no claim on the protections of such treaties.

I don't think that's how international law works. Even someone who opposes the UN is still protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example. Just because you don't want to fulfil your obligations does not automatically mean you lose your protections.

Meanwhile, we've decided that, weighing all the pros and cons, it is, at least for now, better to treat them largely as if they were prisoners of war.

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately they are not in any way treated as if they are prisoners of war: they are kept under prison conditions, which would by itself be a violation of the GCs if they were POWs. They are interrogated using coercive methods, which would be a flagrant violation. If they were POWs the US would need to take care of their healths, including mental health, and we know that the Red Cross has serious concerns for their wellbeing.

If the US treated these detainees according to the GCs as if they were prisoners of war (or even somewhat similarly), we wouldn't have this discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

The times when soldiers wore identifying uniforms so they could be identified as belonging to one side or the other are long gone. Now the most important reason for uniforms is for soldiers to blend in into the environment so they are hard to spot until it's too late, which is why camouflage colours are used.

Camouflage is distinctly different, and is accepted by the Geneva conventions. Camouflage does not make the wearer look like a civilian. It does not make the enemy deliberately avoid targeting the wearer, but rather seeks to avoid the enemy being able to target the wearer. The distinction really is important, because camouflage protects the wearer without endangering civilians, while fighting in civilian clothing only protects the wearer at the cost of endangering civilians. Furthermore, if you have a soldier in camouflage standing in front of you, it's rather easy to tell that it's a soldier. There's even a little US flag on our uniforms you can use to identify that they're not just soldiers, but US soldiers. You don't run the risk of capturing a camouflaged soldier and then releasing him because you couldn't tell he was a soldier.

In a way, Al Qaida terrorists have simply found a much more effective camouflage for urban environments: dress up like ordinary people.

And wearing that "camouflage" endangers ordinary people, while a military uniform that is intended only to blend into surroundings does not. That is why the Geneva conventions prohibit the former but not the latter.

If it is against the rules of warfare to wear clothing that make it hard to notice a soldier before he attacks, then you should argue that Americans should fight in brightly coloured uniforms instead of their desert camouflage.

But that's not what's outlawed, and just as importantly that's not WHY it's outlawed. It's against the law to fight out of uniform not because it makes it easier to see the soldiers when they wear uniforms, but because if all soldiers fight in uniform (including camouflage), you can distinguish between them and civilians, which means you can avoid targeting civilians. If soldiers look like civilians, you cannot avoid targeting civilians.

Personally I don't think that's the reason for this rule, but rather that combattants should have something to identify them as soldiers after they have been killed or captured.

No, that's not the reason. The reason is so that soldiers can AVOID targeting civilians. If soldiers look distinctly different than civilians, then if you see someone who looks like a civilian, you don't shoot them. And that's true even if the soldiers are wearing camo and hard to see. But if the enemy looks like civilians, then civilians will get targeted. The rule is there to try to protect civilians.

I don't think that's how international law works. Even someone who opposes the UN is still protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

The Geneva conventions are explicit on this point. Two signing parties are, of course, bound by the treaty if they have a conflict with each other. If a signing party has a conflict with a non-signatory, then the signing party must follow the treaty as long as the non-signing party also acts in accordance with the treaty. If the non-signing party does not act in accordance with the treaty, the Geneva conventions explicitly free the signing party from any obligations. Al Qaeda has done precisely this: they have acted (time and time again) outside the laws of war. The treaty itself specifies that we have NO treaty obligations in our conflict with them.

Just because you don't want to fulfil your obligations does not automatically mean you lose your protections.

"Want" isn't relevant, but actually yes, if a non-signatory does not act in accordance with the treaty, then it DOES lose any protections from the treaty.

 

[WildCat]

The times when soldiers wore identifying uniforms so they could be identified as belonging to one side or the other are long gone. Now the most important reason for uniforms is for soldiers to blend in into the environment so they are hard to spot until it's too late, which is why camouflage colours are used.

During the war in former Jugoslavia, the US military was even developing camouflage for urban environments: suits with gray and brown patches to simulate concrete and stone. It worked too, although not as well as camouflage for the jungle that can make a soldier nearly disappear to the human eye.

In a way, Al Qaida terrorists have simply found a much more effective camouflage for urban environments: dress up like ordinary people.

If it is against the rules of warfare to wear clothing that make it hard to notice a soldier before he attacks, then you should argue that Americans should fight in brightly coloured uniforms instead of their desert camouflage. Personally I don't think that's the reason for this rule, but rather that combattants should have something to identify them as soldiers after they have been killed or captured.

You're way off base here. Modern armies still wear uniforms, w/ insignia clearly worn identifying them as combatants. It is one thing to wear camoflouge to blend into your surroundings, quite another to wear a "uniform" to disguise oneself as a civilian. In fact, the purpose of wearing a uniform as described in the GC is specifically to avoid such confusion between combatants/non-combatants.

Sorry, this excuse just doesn't wash.

 

[Cylinder]

The times when soldiers wore identifying uniforms so they could be identified as belonging to one side or the other are long gone.

Of course, this position obviates the central tenet of the Geneva Conventions - which is strange, since you seem to argue for them a priori when applied to US forces.

Now the most important reason for uniforms is for soldiers to blend in into the environment so they are hard to spot until it's too late, which is why camouflage colours are used.

During the war in former Jugoslavia, the US military was even developing camouflage for urban environments: suits with gray and brown patches to simulate concrete and stone. It worked too, although not as well as camouflage for the jungle that can make a soldier nearly disappear to the human eye.

Right. US forces camoflage themselves as forest, brush, dirt, snow, grass, rocks, water, sky and bits of sand. If an opposing force treats non-combatant forest, brush, dirt, snow, grass, rocks, water, sky or bits of sand as a combatant force it is not viewed as a grave violation of the laws of armed conflict. There well may be LOAC issues with advanced technology urban warfare camoflage such as invisibility suits or panels but we are nowhere near that implementation at this point in history.

In a way, Al Qaida terrorists have simply found a much more effective camouflage for urban environments: dress up like ordinary people.

A tactic which violates their responsibility against acts of perfidy, in carrying their arms openly, in wearing a fixed distinctive sign and in conducting operations within the laws and customs of war - all requirements that must be met to qualify for POW protection.

If it is against the rules of warfare to wear clothing that make it hard to notice a soldier before he attacks...

It is not.

...then you should argue that Americans should fight in brightly coloured uniforms instead of their desert camouflage.

I do not.

Personally I don't think that's the reason for this rule, but rather that combattants should have something to identify them as soldiers after they have been killed or captured.

Nope. The reason for the rule is to shield, as much as possible, the surrounding non-combatant population from the affects of the ongoing conflict.

I don't think that's how international law works. Even someone who opposes the UN is still protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example. Just because you don't want to fulfil your obligations does not automatically mean you lose your protections.

For the Third Geneva Convention it does per Article 4.

 

[Mycroft]

For example? all those released so far with no evidence produced....did it vanish?

You seem to be claiming that because you are not personally aware of the evidence that led to someone being held at Gitmo that is reason to believe there is no such evidence. I personally am aware of many people who have been held at Gitmo and who have been discussed specifically in these forums, including David Hicks, but I am not aware of anyone who was held without reason.

I’m hoping you can name one such person, and then we can discuss that person.

 

[Mycroft]

The times when soldiers wore identifying uniforms so they could be identified as belonging to one side or the other are long gone. Now the most important reason for uniforms is for soldiers to blend in into the environment so they are hard to spot until it's too late, which is why camouflage colours are used.

Why is it that "progressives" who supposedly want to stand up and encourage us all to act more humanely and civilized towards one another seem to end up supporting ideas that are unimaginably barbaric?

No, the days of identifying uniforms are not gone, that is the internationally accepted standard. The only ones who reject that standard are illegal terrorist organizations. Claiming those days are “long gone” is to reject the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, and every standard of ethic that restrains the behavior of soldiers at war.

 

[Skeptic]

To answer your question, Mycroft, the reason "progressives" often are tyrranophiles (I am not saying Earthborn specifically is one, of course)--supporting the USSR in the past, the PLO today, and who knows what genocidal thug tomorrow--is that they fall in love with an idea, or a dream, or an utopia, and simply ignore all human suffering on the way to this utopia.

 

[Elind]

The Geneva conventions are explicit on this point. Two signing parties are, of course, bound by the treaty if they have a conflict with each other. If a signing party has a conflict with a non-signatory, then the signing party must follow the treaty as long as the non-signing party also acts in accordance with the treaty. If the non-signing party does not act in accordance with the treaty, the Geneva conventions explicitly free the signing party from any obligations. Al Qaeda has done precisely this: they have acted (time and time again) outside the laws of war. The treaty itself specifies that we have NO treaty obligations in our conflict with them.

I'm confused. How long has this discussion been going on now?

If this is correct, and I'm one who relies on people like you to do the finer research o), then why have we been having the debate at all?

 

[Elind]

To answer your question, Mycroft, the reason "progressives" often are tyrranophiles (I am not saying Earthborn specifically is one, of course)--supporting the USSR in the past, the PLO today, and who knows what genocidal thug tomorrow--is that they fall in love with an idea, or a dream, or an utopia, and simply ignore all human suffering on the way to this utopia.

That's why they are called useful (to some) idiots, isn't it?

 

[Ziggurat]

If this is correct, and I'm one who relies on people like you to do the finer research o), then why have we been having the debate at all?

That's one question I can't answer.