Dan Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 None the only people in Gitmo are people who are foreign to the land they were captured in. if they were afghan farmers forced into fighting by taliban and they are captured in afghanistan they would be POW's and put in a POW camp or handed over to the afghan government for trial. These were non-afghan or non-iraqi caught in one of those places. Or someone who was captured elsewhere (maybe a foreign US military base) trying to harm US interests. These are not POWs. Have we officially declared war on anyone through an act of Congress? If not, couldn't we argue that anyone captured or run into on the "battlefield" do not have to be treated as a POW? I'm not sure what that means and obviously this is a greatly complex situation. However, that doesn't mean to imply that there is no right answer or that we can/should treat these individuals however we see fit. I would suggest, however, that it means maybe we should have thought all this through before we started taking prisoners. Perhaps the biggest problem with this whole war on terror/war in Iraq thing is that none of these issues were thought out and we seem to be making it all up as we go along. Can you imagine sending troops into battle and not have a very clear and definitive objective and especially a plan as to when they'd be coming home? Apparently, we learned nothing in that whole Vietnam stuff. Or maybe we did and the plan all along was to never bring the boys and girls home?
VABills Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 Have we officially declared war on anyone through an act of Congress? If not, couldn't we argue that anyone captured or run into on the "battlefield" do not have to be treated as a POW? I'm not sure what that means and obviously this is a greatly complex situation. However, that doesn't mean to imply that there is no right answer or that we can/should treat these individuals however we see fit. I would suggest, however, that it means maybe we should have thought all this through before we started taking prisoners. Perhaps the biggest problem with this whole war on terror/war in Iraq thing is that none of these issues were thought out and we seem to be making it all up as we go along. Can you imagine sending troops into battle and not have a very clear and definitive objective and especially a plan as to when they'd be coming home? Apparently, we learned nothing in that whole Vietnam stuff. Or maybe we did and the plan all along was to never bring the boys and girls home? Yes there was an offically declared war. That is a fact. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR: Two even if there wasn't you are missing the entire point. there are no Iraqi fighters who were captured in Iraq (unless they were caught sneaking in from Iran, which means they also are no longer classified POW). The only folks in gitmo are Eqyptian, suadis, yemeni, etc... who were captured fighting the USA in a foreign country not their own. This is not a US defined term of what a foreign agent is this is defined by the UN and the Geneiva Convention. These folks should have been tried in a military tribunal on the battlefield by the capturing unit. The should have been interrogated, tortured and shot as that is the only punishment permissable for that act. War or not is irrelevant. Now let me edit this and say, Gitmo should never have happened, but now that it has, I do not know the legal ramifications. I think the "best" thing would be to send them back to the point of capture and have the capturing unit run the military tribunal like they should have all along, find them guilty and shoot them.
Dan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Yes there was an offically declared war. That is a fact. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR: Two even if there wasn't you are missing the entire point. there are no Iraqi fighters who were captured in Iraq (unless they were caught sneaking in from Iran, which means they also are no longer classified POW). The only folks in gitmo are Eqyptian, suadis, yemeni, etc... who were captured fighting the USA in a foreign country not their own. This is not a US defined term of what a foreign agent is this is defined by the UN and the Geneiva Convention. These folks should have been tried in a military tribunal on the battlefield by the capturing unit. The should have been interrogated, tortured and shot as that is the only punishment permissable for that act. War or not is irrelevant. Now let me edit this and say, Gitmo should never have happened, but now that it has, I do not know the legal ramifications. I think the "best" thing would be to send them back to the point of capture and have the capturing unit run the military tribunal like they should have all along, find them guilty and shoot them. You do realize that the link you referenced is a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq under the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 and it's not a formal Declaration of War. Right? This resolution provides certain authorities to the President, as well as certain responsibilities. Of course, the President has ignored many of those provisions - just like most every President has that has sent troops into armed conflict for the last 50 years because the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution Act has been debated since it's passage. Do you really pretend to suggest that the Geneva Convention states that "foreign agents" should be "interrogated, tortured, and shot on the battlefield" as they're captured? Seriously? Pointless I know but still: Actually according to the 3rd Geneva Convention in 1949, "there is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law." If an individual captured is not classified as a POW, then they must be classified as a Civilian. Either way, they are both entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy. Interestingly, if they're classified as civilians they can be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. Also, the country of origin of the combatants has no bearing in the discussion. The primary problem with the detainees in Gitmo is that we've not done anything with them. We didn't classify them as POWs. We didn't prosecute them. We didn't shoot them. We just captured individuals, ignored all facets of international law, tortured them, and thought we could hold them indefinitely. It's a mess any way you slice it. Quite honestly, they should have shot them all years ago. But for some unknown reason they've let the mess just persist. The problem now is what do you do with them. Almost any trial is going to be a mess at best because they've been tortured and held improperly. Most are not welcome back in any country. Maybe they should just transfer them all back to the US to stand trial and have the transport plane crash in a storm at sea.
VABills Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 You do realize that the link you referenced is a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq under the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 and it's not a formal Declaration of War. Right? This resolution provides certain authorities to the President, as well as certain responsibilities. Of course, the President has ignored many of those provisions - just like most every President has that has sent troops into armed conflict for the last 50 years because the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution Act has been debated since it's passage. Do you really pretend to suggest that the Geneva Convention states that "foreign agents" should be "interrogated, tortured, and shot on the battlefield" as they're captured? Seriously? Pointless I know but still: Actually according to the 3rd Geneva Convention in 1949, "there is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law." If an individual captured is not classified as a POW, then they must be classified as a Civilian. Either way, they are both entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy. Interestingly, if they're classified as civilians they can be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. Also, the country of origin of the combatants has no bearing in the discussion. The primary problem with the detainees in Gitmo is that we've not done anything with them. We didn't classify them as POWs. We didn't prosecute them. We didn't shoot them. We just captured individuals, ignored all facets of international law, tortured them, and thought we could hold them indefinitely. It's a mess any way you slice it. Quite honestly, they should have shot them all years ago. But for some unknown reason they've let the mess just persist. The problem now is what do you do with them. Almost any trial is going to be a mess at best because they've been tortured and held improperly. Most are not welcome back in any country. Maybe they should just transfer them all back to the US to stand trial and have the transport plane crash in a storm at sea. Just make sure the hero from the hudson isn't flying.
Dan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Just make sure the hero from the hudson isn't flying. Agreed. They need to find some guy that they're about to discharge for some reason.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 And why is it so hard for you to understand that despite your opinion the SCOTUS has ruled that both the Genieva Convention and certain provisions of US Law do apply to the prisoners held in Gitmo? And those rulings are illegal under international law. Thus, my point: SCOTUS is making a true hash of the applicable law. And even if that weren't a fact what could possibly be more un-American than locking up a group of people without charging them with anything in any court other than public opinion, without providing them an oportunity to defend themselves from the charges that haven't been leveled against them, and subjecting them to conditions and treatments which are in direct violation of both international treaty and the high moral standards we claim that our nation personifies and upholds? The difference being: I don't want the Supreme Court deciding on "higher principles", I want them deciding on THE LAW. The law - specifically the Geneva Conventions - need to be changed to cover this situation, as I've been saying for years already. We're really arguing a difference of means: you seem to be perfectly happy with trashing the existing national and international laws on the subject in the pursuit of "higher principles". I'd personally rather see those higher principles actually encoded into the law.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Pointless I know but still: Actually according to the 3rd Geneva Convention in 1949, "there is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law." If an individual captured is not classified as a POW, then they must be classified as a Civilian. Either way, they are both entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy. Interestingly, if they're classified as civilians they can be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. Also, the country of origin of the combatants has no bearing in the discussion. You getting that from Wikipedia or something? It says no such thing.
Dan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 You getting that from Wikipedia or something? It says no such thing. You are correct. Those exact words are not in the Geneva Convention; I mistakenly left the quotation marks (I apologize for my haste). The text is a summary largely taken from Wiki. I used that language because, quite honestly, they summed it up better than I probably would have. The actual text of the 2 Geneva Conventions that I referred to can be viewed on the International Committee of the Red Cross website: Convention III and Convention IV In such, they precisely define a POW in Convention III. In Convention IV, Part II, Art. 13, they provide for the General Protection of Populations. As such, "The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war." I think it safe to conclude that if you're not a POW as defined in Conv. III, Art. 4, then you'd fall into the broad category of the general population in Conv. IV, Art. 13. Either way, they define the proper way to care for, interrogate, and otherwise handle people and POWs. And this most certainly does not include people that are "foreign agents" are to be interrogated, tortured and shot on the battlefield. This whole notion that the Gitmo detainees are enemy combatants or foreign agents or any other term is (IMO) meant to confuse the situation so the previous administration could contend that they fell outside of international law. Fact of the matter is, there are relatively clear international laws that define how people captured during a military action should have been handled. We discarded those laws for our own purposes - right or wrong. The result is the current mess we have. Did detaining these individuals and torturing them prevent terrorist attacks? I honestly don't know. Hopefully, it did. Regardless, when they got all the information they could from them they should have done something other than hold them indefinitely without trial. How useful could their information have been once you got to 3 or 4 years in captivity? Perhaps they had the stomach to torture them, but not to rig a trial or put a bullet in their head.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 And those rulings are illegal under international law. Thus, my point: SCOTUS is making a true hash of the applicable law. The difference being: I don't want the Supreme Court deciding on "higher principles", I want them deciding on THE LAW. The law - specifically the Geneva Conventions - need to be changed to cover this situation, as I've been saying for years already. We're really arguing a difference of means: you seem to be perfectly happy with trashing the existing national and international laws on the subject in the pursuit of "higher principles". I'd personally rather see those higher principles actually encoded into the law. Tom, you're a computer geek working for a financial company that just happens to be chartered by the US Government. You're not a lawyer or even a paralegal. What other than your desire to defend the decisions of the Bush administration against all challenges, makes you think you're qualified to decide that the decisions of the SCOTUS are incorrect? And how can a decision rendered by the SCOTUS be effected by international law? The last time I looked it was very possible for the laws of the US and "international" law to be in opposition on many points. In fact members of the military stationed in foreign countries receive regular training on the differences between US law and the laws of the country where they are stationed. That is done to protect those service members from inadvertently violating the laws of the host country which in many cases can be radically different from US law. One of the ways we as a nation work out those differences in laws is through the negotiation of a Treaty between one or more sovereign states. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. Those treaties serve the function of bridging the gaps between the laws of various nations and allowing a single set of rules to govern the administration of a given situation. Vienna Treaty Agreement Guide to International Law
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 The last time I looked it was very possible for the laws of the US and "international" law to be in opposition on many points. Only point I'm quoting, because it's the only point I need to address. Yes, it is possible. So thus, the SCOTUS decides that BOTH apply, even when they contradict? And yes, I feel perfectly free to disagree with a court that decides such ridiculous notions as "eminent domain" means seizing private property on behalf of another private party. The court, quite simply, can be wrong. They usually are when they decide from "higher principles".
PastaJoe Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Senators vow to keep Gitmo inmates from coming to South Carolina Cowards. Send them to New York State. Hell, build a prison near my neighborhood, we could use the jobs. This belief that somehow they would be dangerous because they're in a prison in the U.S. is just cheap theatrics. They would be more closely scrutinized than most of the prisoners in the country.
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Cowards. Send them to New York State. Hell, build a prison near my neighborhood, we could use the jobs. This belief that somehow they would be dangerous because they're in a prison in the U.S. is just cheap theatrics. They would be more closely scrutinized than most of the prisoners in the country. Criminals aren't politically correct. They might do something to them what the politicians are afraid to do. Yeah..I'm on board.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Only point I'm quoting, because it's the only point I need to address. Yes, it is possible. So thus, the SCOTUS decides that BOTH apply, even when they contradict? And yes, I feel perfectly free to disagree with a court that decides such ridiculous notions as "eminent domain" means seizing private property on behalf of another private party. The court, quite simply, can be wrong. They usually are when they decide from "higher principles". The SCOTUS decided that US law applies. The SCOTUS has no say or opinion concerning the laws of any other country. Whether you or I agree with a particular law is immaterial the law is what the law is. And the Law of the United States of America, in Particular the Right of Habeas Corpus applies to the prisoners held at Gitmo. Why? 'Cuz the SCOTUS said so, DC Tom's opinion not withstanding...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 The SCOTUS decided that US law applies. The SCOTUS has no say or opinion concerning the laws of any other country. Whether you or I agree with a particular law is immaterial the law is what the law is. And the Law of the United States of America, in Particular the Right of Habeas Corpus applies to the prisoners held at Gitmo. Why? 'Cuz the SCOTUS said so, DC Tom's opinion not withstanding... You haven't actually read a single thing I've typed, have you? The Geneva Convention is now the law of "another country"? Stick to driving submarines.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 You haven't actually read a single thing I've typed, have you? The Geneva Convention is now the law of "another country"? Stick to driving submarines. Actually Tom I've read everything you've typed on the subject in this thread. Did you read what I typed or read the info in the links I provided? If you did where did you come up with this "The Geneva Convention is now the law of another country" Horseshitt? I never said or implied that and you know it. You are the one who keeps making statements like this: And those rulings are illegal under international law. Thus, my point: SCOTUS is making a true hash of the applicable law. And ignoring the fact that the rulings of the SCOTUS apply only to US Law and Treaties signed by the US and Ratified by Congress and thus cannot be illegal under "international law." So quit trying to blow smoke up everybody's ass. The SCOTUS doesn't rule in accordance with the whims of DC Tom, they rule based on the constitution of the United States. And that ruling in two separate cases is that both Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention apply to the prisoners held at Gitmo. We already know you don't agree with the ruling but that really doesn't mean a lot to anyone except you.
GG Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 And that ruling in two separate cases is that both Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention apply to the prisoners held at Gitmo. That was your reading of the Hamdan decision? Mkay.
VABills Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 You haven't actually read a single thing I've typed, have you? The Geneva Convention is now the law of "another country"? Stick to driving submarines. The Geneva Convention is in effect a treaty and only applicable to the countries that sign and abide by it, first off. Secondly the "foreign agents" are classified as such because in reality because they are illegally fighting in a foreign land they have no status under the convention. Therefore, the rules do not apply to them nor to the the capturing country (US). Therefore the presidence has been set since Civil War times on how the US has dealt with foreign fighters and enemy agents.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 That was your reading of the Hamdan decision? Mkay. No, I'm going by what the SCOTUS said in Oyez. You can join Tom in saying that their ruling was wrong but... Question May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President? Conclusion Yes and no. The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 OBTW did anyone else catch former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzalez's appearance on Geraldo Rivera's show last night? According to him, the decision not to classify the prisoner's being held at Gitmo as POW's was not because of the Geneva Conventions, but because of a tactical decision the Bush Administration made in the "War on Terror." (Interesting, if true what are the legal ramifications of that?) He went on to say that if they were classified as POW's then the right of Habeas Corpus would not apply. (True) He also said that in retrospect they probably should have been classified as POW's. I'm looking for a link to that segment.
VABills Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 OBTW did anyone else catch former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzalez's appearance on Geraldo Rivera's show last night? According to him, the decision not to classify the prisoner's being held at Gitmo as POW's was not because of the Geneva Conventions, but because of a tactical decision the Bush Administration made in the "War on Terror." (Interesting, if true what are the legal ramifications of that?) He went on to say that if they were classified as POW's then the right of Habeas Corpus would not apply. (True) He also said that in retrospect they probably should have been classified as POW's. I'm looking for a link to that segment. And if they'd been classified as POW's, unless you can prove war crimes then pretty much they are held until the end of conflict and released with no punishment. That wasn't happening, no matter what anyone says publically.
Recommended Posts