Guantanamo vs. Iran

[Thunder]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.

 

[Ziggurat]

So Nelson Mandela got put in prison. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans treated Charles Manson?

What could we possibly say to South Africa?

 

[RandFan]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.

1. Individual taken to Guantanamo where combatants in a military conflict involving America and the combatants.
2. There was no military conflict between Iran and Britain.
3. The British soldiers were following the code of military conduct including the wearing of proper military uniforms.

Perhaps you should think about these things before you post. Please note that I'm not excusing the actions of the US, I'm saying that your argument is nonsense.

 

[Thunder]

So if those captured in Afghanistan were wearing green uniforms they would be allowed Geneva Conventions protections? I didnt realize it was that simple. This also means that if Iran captures any Americans doing covert ops in Iran, not wearing official American uniforms including an American flag badge, then the Iranians have the right to blindfold, shackle, isolate, and intimidate our soldiers?

 

[Ziggurat]

This also means that if Iran captures any Americans doing covert ops in Iran, not wearing official American uniforms including an American flag badge, then the Iranians have the right to blindfold, shackle, isolate, and intimidate our soldiers?

According to the Geneva conventions, yes.

 

[Thunder]

It is my best guess that if Iran, or Syria, or any other country actually did capture covert ops Americans out of uniform, the USA would still insist that they be treated under Geneva Convention guidelines. But we will have to wait for that to happen.

By the way, did the Colonial forces during the Revolutionary war actually have a uniform?

 

[RandFan]

So if those captured in Afghanistan were wearing green uniforms they would be allowed Geneva Conventions protections?

{sigh} This is a single item.

I didnt realize it was that simple.

No, it's not which is why I enumerated three. It looks like you missed the other two.

This also means that if Iran captures any Americans doing covert ops in Iran, not wearing official American uniforms including an American flag badge, then the Iranians have the right to blindfold, shackle, isolate, and intimidate our soldiers?

I said, I don't condone the actions of the US. I did say that your argument is nonsense and it is.

If Iran captured Americans doing covert ops in Iran then your argument would make sense.

That wasn't what happened.

Right?

 

[Ziggurat]

It is my best guess that if Iran, or Syria, or any other country actually did capture covert ops Americans out of uniform, the USA would still insist that they be treated under Geneva Convention guidelines. But we will have to wait for that to happen.

Well, blindfolding and shackling are permitted under the Geneva conventions, so I'm not sure why you brought that bit up. You seem rather incoherent in your position. As for "intimidating", well, that's a pretty vague word. You can intimidate someone without even meaning to, and you can do it deliberately without making them fear imminent death.

By the way, did the Colonial forces during the Revolutionary war actually have a uniform?

Not all of them did, but there were various uniforms used by the continentals. The Geneva conventions did not exist at the time, but there are previsions within it for irregular forces which are formed without being able to create a standardized uniform. One of the requirements that still applies in such cases is that they bear their arms openly, something the continental army definitely did do.

 

[Thunder]

All I'm trying to say is that I believe it is in America's best interests to allow anyone captured on "the battlefield" the right to not be mistreated and the right to defend accusations and charges made against them. Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge, we demean our own sense of democracy and justice, and may infact be imprisoning innocent people. Justice for all and security do not have to be mutually exclusive.

p.s. how about a spell checker for JREF posts?..

 

[Azure]

1. Individual taken to Guantanamo where combatants in a military conflict involving America and the combatants.
2. There was no military conflict between Iran and Britain.
3. The British soldiers were following the code of military conduct including the wearing of proper military uniforms.

Perhaps you should think about these things before you post. Please note that I'm not excusing the actions of the US, I'm saying that your argument is nonsense.

#4. Parky is an idiot.

 

[Azure]

All I'm trying to say is that I believe it is in America's best interests to allow anyone captured on "the battlefield" the right to not be mistreated and the right to defend accusations and charged made against them. Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge, we demean our own sense of democracy and justice, and may infact be imprisoning innocent people. Justice for all and security do not have to be mutually exclusive.

p.s. how about a spell checker for JREF posts?..

Last time I checked, POWs were held until the completion of the war they were involved in.

In other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Wat Tyler]

Of course, there is something else to consider here:

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources (which is, after all, and as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.

 

[Wat Tyler]

p.s. how about a spell checker for JREF posts?..

Get Firefox - it has one built-in.

 

[Azure]

Of course, there is something else to consider here:

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms'' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources (which is, after all, and as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.

And what exactly does ANY of that have to do with the OP?

Go home.

 

[Ziggurat]

All I'm trying to say is that I believe it is in America's best interests to allow anyone captured on "the battlefield" the right to not be mistreated

The UCMJ sets out standards for the treatment of prisoners to prevent abuse. These standards apply irregardless of Geneva conventions.

and the right to defend accusations and charges made against them.

There is already a mechanism in place where detainees can defend themselves and challenge their status. "Charges" is a misnomer, however: enemy combatants, just like POW's, are not held on "charges".

Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge,

This statement betrays a deep ignorance of the issues involved. Holding prisoners indefinitely without charges is EXACTLY the treatment demanded by the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war.

 

[Wat Tyler]

And what exactly does ANY of that have to do with the OP?

Go home.

Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo - only a hitherto unheard-of category of detainee created by the US Executive, which they nominate 'Enemy Combatant'.

Who 'doesn't know what they're talking about' now?

Oh, and please note that I didn't descend to personal insults, unlike your good self (see posts 10 & 11 in this Thread).


My point about the Cheney regime lying about their motivations for invading Iraq is in the same vein as Parky's OP where it points out the hypocrisy evident in our lecturing Iran about illegally detaining non-combatants from nations with whom it is not at-War.

The rest of my post refers to the fact that, throughout history, ALL nation states have lied about their motivations for initiating Wars - to their own populations and to the rest of the World.

Neocon-run America is no different than any of the others in this respect.

But that doesn't excuse its actions.

 

[Azure]

Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo -

Who said there were POWs at Gitmo?

I said POWs captured during a conflict are held until the end of said conflict.

You see, parky said...

Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge,

Now you get it? Or did you miss something else?

 

[Thunder]

POW is a legal status. It assumes that an official state of war exists between two nations. During an official state of war, enemies can be detained, without charge, until hostilities end.

The "War on Terror" is not a war in the legal sense. The use of the word "war" is figuritive. It is no different then "the War on Poverty" or "the War on Drugs". We are not at war with a single nation, or a single organization, or even a single ideology. This "war" is against Al Qaeda and like minded groups or individuals. This "war" will be without end, because there will never cease to be Muslems who are pissed off with the America and might seek to do us harm. The USA needs to rewrite our laws of war regarding conflicts against non-state entities, groups, and ideologies. We need new rules to govern our conduct during this new era. Otherwise, a perpetual state of war can exist, until the President or whoever decides "war is over".

 

[Wat Tyler]

Who said there were POWs at Gitmo?

I said POWs captured during a conflict are held until the end of said conflict.

You see, parky said...

Now you get it? Or did you miss something else?

Oh, right - now I get it - you are deliberately trying to alter the content of the discussion in order to wrench it away from topics in which you are unable to refute the assertions of your opponents - or is it that you are trying to put words in the mouths of those that do not share your opinions to try to hide the first point?

Perhaps I am being obtuse here, so let me rephrase my remarks:

What the Vorsprung dürch Technik do the internationally-agreed conventions governing the treatments of Prisoners of War have to do with the people held at Gitmo, or those peple who have been 'extraordinarily-rendered' on CIA flights to who-knows-where?

They are NOT POW's, so why mention the treatment of POW's at all, other than to try to muddy the waters?

 

[Cylinder]

POW is a legal status.

Correct.

It assumes that an official state of war exists between two nations. During an official state of war, enemies can be detained, without charge, until hostilities end.

Incorrect. Common Article 2:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The "War on Terror" is not a war in the legal sense. The use of the word "war" is figuritive.

Please point me to the Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted by Congress against poverty and drugs.