RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates

RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ArticMaestro -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/24/2008 7:00:08 PM)
You can read the Geneva Conventions on line if you like. I wish people engaging in this discussion would. They do contain times when violence against prisioners is allowed to be used, up to death. As well as the rules for charging a prisioner with specific crimes. More importantly they contain the responsibilities of anyone engaging in combat in order to qualify for POW status. The people in Guantamano absolutly do not. They are neither Protected Civilians nor POW's. They can not be tortured or shot at will, but can be held incommunicado untill the holding power feels they are no longer a security threat/ hostilities are over. They do not have to be given trial to be held. They do not have to get trials, unless you want to charge a specific individual with a specific act. Generally in the past people in this "Unlawfull combatant" status were Spies and Sabatours. Modern Terrorism has produced a new problem, which will probably require a new Accord added to the Existing Geneva Conventions, but that does require that We win the current struggle, not those that reject the accords in thier entirety.

Politesub53 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 3:17:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro More importantly they contain the responsibilities of anyone engaging in combat in order to qualify for POW status. The people in Guantamano absolutly do not. They are neither Protected Civilians nor POW's. They can not be tortured or shot at will, but can be held incommunicado untill the holding power feels they are no longer a security threat/ hostilities are over. They do not have to be given trial to be held. They do not have to get trials, unless you want to charge a specific individual with a specific act. Generally in the past people in this "Unlawfull combatant" status were Spies and Sabatours. You are mistaken. Article 71 states there should be a trial as soon as possible. What would you say to the people who have been held just on the say so of others, maybe with information gained in reward for cash or under duress ? Art. 71. No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial. Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. The Protecting Power shall be informed of all proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons in respect of charges involving the death penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons. The notification to the Protecting Power, as provided for in the second paragraph above, shall be sent immediately, and shall in any case reach the Protecting Power three weeks before the date of the first hearing. Unless, at the opening of the trial, evidence is submitted that the provisions of this Article are fully complied with, the trial shall not proceed. The notification shall include the following particulars: (a) description of the accused; (b) place of residence or detention; (c) specification of the charge or charges (with mention of the penal provisions under which it is brought); (d) designation of the court which will hear the case; (e) place and date of the first hearing.

ArticMaestro -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 11:14:38 AM)
Or you could read article 5, which is more relevant Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. Like I said they can not be tortured or shot at will, but they can be held incommunicado. Article 71 only comes into play if you want to charge a detainee with a specific crime, just as I said in my previous post. There is no need for a trial to hold them untill the security situation is resolved, only if you want to charge and punish them for a specific act. And then of course there is article 2, which makes the entire argument meaningless, Al Queda gets no rights at all under the Geneva covention.

Raechard -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 11:49:51 AM)
Article 5 seems to relate to the right to communication with the outside world not rights regarding trials. You state ‘In case of trial’ as being wording used to indicate people can be held without those rights as long as they aren’t facing trial. I read ‘in case of trial’ as being a reiteration of the fact that although you can prevent a detainee from communicating with the outside world for security reasons you can't suspend their rights regarding trials and due process. What you are arguing is we can hold people as long as we don't charge them with anything? That seems fair to me, fancy a bit of indefinite imprisonment without charge? That isn’t a legal process, it’s madness. You are right about detainees being unprotected by the convention; the convention is a bit of paper that is open to interpretation. The spirit of the Geneva convention though is something else and that is what you are missing here. Seems to me article 5 in no way nullifies article 71. You can read article five and equally interpret the fact it reiterates the importance of rights for those facing trial. There is no limbo period you are either accused of something in which case charges are brought or you are fee to go. Me read the text for why? Am I a judge is my adjudication going to change the reality of the situation? People can read the convention to their hearts content and whinge and moan with their opinions as to what it means. They are ignoring why it was written.

ArticMaestro -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 12:28:27 PM)
No reachard, I do not claim the clause, "in case of trial", in the 3rd sentance as indicating that they can be held with out a trail or communication rights. The first sentance clearly states it to be so. They can't be tortured or killed at whim, but they can be held, with humane, minus communication, treatment. Of course 5 and 71 do not nullify one another. 71 Goes into detail about a clause in 5. 71 is the details for "if there is a trial" in 5. Reachard, no one is arguing for indefinite holding. The Conventions clearly state they must be released "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power". I actually think you are ignoring what the conventions are and why they were written.

Raechard -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 12:34:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro Reachard, no one is arguing for indefinite holding. The Conventions clearly state they must be released "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power". That is as good as indefinite, can't you see that? When does a war on terror end, when does the State or Occupying Power feel secure?

hardbodysub -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 12:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: and human rights are suddenly a consideration why again? Nothing sudden about it. The Bush administration has demurred on releasing the Uighurs to the Chinese for quite some time on fears they would be tortured and killed once they got to Beijing. The larger question of Gitmo has always been--what do we do with these people now that we've captured them? Oh, there's a laugh! The Bushees torture prisoners in Iraq and Gitmo, kidnap and send a Canadian citizen to Syria to be tortured, but they're afraid to return prisoners to China because the same thing might happen to them there. I guess it's only OK if we do it.

ArticMaestro -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 2:17:51 PM)
Raechard, it is inderminate, not indefinate. It depends on actuall circumstances. Geneva is not a series of loopholes so terrorists can defeat the West. One of the main purposes of Geneva is to protect non combatant civilians from suffering durring conflict. The strategy of blending with the civilians to carry out atacks, is specifically banned. Those who do, do not get POW status, nor are they civilians. They forfiet Protected Person status. They are to be held without communication and treated humanely. They are not soldiers in an army, and can not be treated as such.

corysub -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 2:35:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro More importantly they contain the responsibilities of anyone engaging in combat in order to qualify for POW status. The people in Guantamano absolutly do not. They are neither Protected Civilians nor POW's. They can not be tortured or shot at will, but can be held incommunicado untill the holding power feels they are no longer a security threat/ hostilities are over. They do not have to be given trial to be held. They do not have to get trials, unless you want to charge a specific individual with a specific act. Generally in the past people in this "Unlawfull combatant" status were Spies and Sabatours. You are mistaken. Article 71 states there should be a trial as soon as possible. What would you say to the people who have been held just on the say so of others, maybe with information gained in reward for cash or under duress ? Art. 71. No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial. Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. The Protecting Power shall be informed of all proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons in respect of charges involving the death penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons. The notification to the Protecting Power, as provided for in the second paragraph above, shall be sent immediately, and shall in any case reach the Protecting Power three weeks before the date of the first hearing. Unless, at the opening of the trial, evidence is submitted that the provisions of this Article are fully complied with, the trial shall not proceed. The notification shall include the following particulars: (a) description of the accused; (b) place of residence or detention; (c) specification of the charge or charges (with mention of the penal provisions under which it is brought); (d) designation of the court which will hear the case; (e) place and date of the first hearing. C'mon...citing articles of the Geneva Convention that apply to warriors wearing the uniform of their country. These people were taken either on the battlefield or were detained in the United States...neither of which were uniformed combatants. The only mistake we made was that they should have been interrogated in place and for all the current information they might have. Sure some of these would be fiction stories but men taken together never put the same story together in a piece...unless it was true. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to dissect fact from fiction. War is hell guy..and ask anyone who served...particularly WW2 when American and allied troops were torutured and bayoneted if they fell during a forced march to prison. War is hell if you talk with anyone who served in Korea and can tell you about marines that were tied to trees and their testiclas put in their mouths as they were killed. War is hell guy, when members of your own platoon shoot a brand new 90 day wonder with his "yes sir, no sir" attitude who would get them all killed if he led them into battle. War is not an armchair Monday morning quarterback, hindsight vision, game....Radical muslims extremists don't think twice about sending teenagers and women into markets to blow themselves up along with innocent children and men and women just picking up groceries for the family dinner. And you quote Article 71!!! Fuck Article 71!!

Owner59 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 3:15:44 PM)
Of course it`s going to be hard to fix this mess.Unfortunately,not fixing would be worse. It`s not easy to fix a shattered leg,either.But not fixing it would be worse(unless of course,there`s malice in one`s heart). We can let the hard cases live in Dallas,in George Bush`s guest house.[:D]He created the mess,let them live with him,as the saying goes.

Politesub53 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 4:42:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. Point taken with the above paragraph. My problem isnt so much with those who have been detained commiting hostile acts. Its those caught and held on on the word of others. There needs to be some concrete proof. I think the term occupying power makes the whole thing a moot point, as you say.

ArticMaestro -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 4:52:33 PM)
No, the convention itself sets a standard of "definite suspicion", which is far different that "concrete proof".

Politesub53 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 5:00:15 PM)
Would you call the word of someone collecting a reward, or under duress, definite suspicion. Also, what about the point of "occupying power" which clearly isnt the case.

ArticMaestro -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 6:28:31 PM)
Wherever soldiers are operating they are occupying. It does not refer to a legal mandate of occupation (which we do have in Iraq). I and I do not believe you are privy to the real details of any paticular case. We have a new president coming in who will review the cases, along with actuall intell. The vast majority of those who have been detained by US forces have been released quite quickly, albeit sometimes to the local authorities. Do you actually expect concrete proof to be released to the general public about the activities of a terrorist detainee, along with how we know it? An open civil trial?

popeye1250 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/25/2008 7:56:04 PM)
"Trials?" Just take them out back and shoot them as spies. Does anyone think that at this point we're going to get anymore usefull info from them? They've been out of the loop for so long they don't have any relevant info now anyway. Last I heard al qeada isn't a signatory to the Geneva Accords anyway so they don't get any protection under them.

Politesub53 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/26/2008 2:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub C'mon...citing articles of the Geneva Convention that apply to warriors wearing the uniform of their country. These people were taken either on the battlefield or were detained in the United States...neither of which were uniformed combatants. Battlefield ?............ Your ignorance of where some of the people were detained is stunning, but not suprising. Your own supreme court ruled they were entitled to the protections laid down in article 3.

Politesub53 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/26/2008 2:44:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro Do you actually expect concrete proof to be released to the general public about the activities of a terrorist detainee, along with how we know it? An open civil trial? Yes, an open trial would be preferable, along with proof of crimes commited. The alternative is a military that is above the rule of law. I have nothing against those being found guilty of terrorism facing the death penalty.

ArticMaestro -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/26/2008 3:11:38 AM)
So you want to expose all of our effective intelligence agents, overseas informers, and technical methods of gathering intell. That is what an open trial would mean. Death to the families of anyone in the muslim world who helped the US/west. And the complete castration of the Western Intelligence services and governments. Why would you want that? Don't you think it matters which side wins?

NormalOutside -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/26/2008 3:22:13 AM)
It's funny that it seems the entire world is looking at the US with this "tsk tsk tsk.... you've gone and let some random terrorist get into your top spot, him and his buddies used you and your resources to mess around with all the rest of us for years now, and finally it's coming back at you........ enjoy!" look in their eyes. :p Maybe the world will become a better place, I don't know. I hadn't really even entertained the thought in about a year. Here's hoping.

Politesub53 -> RE: China calls for return of Guantanamo Bay inmates (12/26/2008 10:26:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro So you want to expose all of our effective intelligence agents, overseas informers, and technical methods of gathering intell. That is what an open trial would mean. Death to the families of anyone in the muslim world who helped the US/west. And the complete castration of the Western Intelligence services and governments. Why would you want that? Don't you think it matters which side wins? The tribunal courts are closed to outsiders when such a witness is produced. Whats wrong with the same happening in criminal courts ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875