Guantanamo Bay detainees to get Geneva protections

A step in the right direction, but too little, too late to retain or regain respect. All of the obviously wrong (if questionably–oh, no, this one’s now clearly illegal) shit that’s needlessly gone on thanks to this gung-ho “bring it on” administration. What a waste of time, sympathy, respect, legitimacy…

[quote=“BBC”]All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.

The White House announced the shift in policy on Tuesday, almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.

President Bush had long fought the idea that US detainees were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva Convention rights.

The defence department outlined the new policy to staff in an internal memo.

The new policy says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on the issue on Tuesday morning, just as news of the new military policy became public.

Daniel Dell’Orto, a defence department lawyer who was the first to testify, said there were about 1,000 detainees in US military custody around the world.

Guantanamo Bay holds an estimated 450. Mr Dell’Orto did not say where the others were being held.

The new Pentagon policy applies only to detainees being held by the military, and not to those in CIA custody, such as alleged mastermind of the 11 September attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[/quote]

I wonder if this kid is held by the military, or CIA? He’s being held for killing a medic when he was, what, 15 years old?

A new report describes Canadian teen Omar Khadr being carried into Guantanamo Bay interrogations on a stretcher, dangling from a door frame for hours and used as a human floor mop to clean his own urine.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York released the first major overview Monday of alleged abuses and torture at the U.S. prison camp for terror suspects, including rape, sexual harassment and vicious beatings.

Muneer Ahmad, one of Khadr’s lawyers, has already publicly outlined in some detail claims of abuse from the 19-year-old, who faces life in prison on a charge of murdering a U.S. medic in Afghanistan in July 2002.[/quote]

And what devastation it has been to the moral authority the US spent decades building…

Bullshit. Read the Geneva Convention. Read the stipulations.

Were any of these people in uniform? Were they clearly identified? What is their government? Who should their return be negotiated with? Is the war over? Are they POWs? Who determines when and how they should be returned and to whom and which country?

This is a very unique gray area. We will have to come up with a new way to deal with the threat posed by such people. Anyone want to disagree? Then, fine. Let’s take those fine upstanding citizens and release them in whichever city the loudest voices are coming from. My nomination is for Vancouver or Toronto. I am sure that they will be grateful for the hospitality and protection of their rights and will never do anything to hurt anyone in their newly found homes. haha Want to take that risk?

Why doesn’t Canada give them asylum? So many dissidents from so many countries have found asylum in Western Europe, Canada, Australia from nations all over the world. How about taking these 450 off the hands of the US if there is such a concern about human rights? Hmmm? I would be happy to have these people offloaded to a more “civilized” government. Who wants to step up to the plate?

Indeed it is, but at the very minimum the Geneva convention should have been adhered to.


Jolly Good!
Does this mean the captives of the terrorists will get GC approved tratment prior to their beheading?

It will be reciprocal won’t it?


We will have to come up with…”
“When we…

You broke it, fred, you bought it. I realize that externalizing/ offloading/ out sourcing/ ignoring costs is standard modus operandi in the might-makes-right rape-and-pilllage camp… nonetheless, having been raised to always do a bit more than necessary, to leave a place better than I found it, I’m not entirely unsympathetic to your plight… but there is this little thing about learning responsibility, and you are just going to have to wake from that ‘we can do what we damn well please’ daze one of these days.

Mr. Green et al. did their part for reciprocity. How much more would you like?

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]It will be reciprocal won’t it?[/quote]Mr. Green et al. did their part for reciprocity. How much more would you like?[/quote]Jaboney -
I am unable to understand your rather cryptic reply. Mea culpa.

However, I would refer you to the 1st line of Mr. Smith post.
Specifically this part - "Read the Geneva Convention. Read the stipulations. "

It is unwise to interpret this comment as condoning abusive treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. Although that stance does further your agenda.
Rather it should be looked at as abiding by the realities of International Law and the words of the Geneva Convention.

Now, can we expect the terrs to also honor this agreement?
Do you offer an opinion on their actions in light of this announcement today?

[quote]Jolly Good!
Does this mean the captives of the terrorists will get GC approved tratment prior to their beheading?

It will be reciprocal won’t it?[/quote]

Well these Islamo-pigs have clearly shown they’re not up to it, but that doesn’t mean the west should throw in the moral towel, at least openly, if you get my drift. By all means, beat these pigs senseless or use whatever methods work to gain intel, but openly flaunting your disdain for agreed conventions is plain stupid.


[quote]“We will have to come up with…”
“When we…”
Whee!!! [/quote]

Must be the after effects of the full moon on Monday…

I did not break anything. I did not buy anything. WE as a nation. WE as Westerners are faced with the problem of how to deal with the threat of terrorism. Please explain to me how one could come to the conclusion that terrorists need to be offered the protection of the Geneva Convention. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. Please tell me what stipulations in the Geneva Convention you believe support the view that those out of uniform and engaging in terrorism who are not fighting for officially defined states should be offered the same protections as soldiers in uniform fighting for internationally recognized governments?

We can do anything we damned please? Now, you are the one who seems to be found of using “we,” eh? Should I use the rolling around dying of laughter icon here?

The US has never engaged in a policy of we can do anything we damned well want. I do hope you will grant me the great privilege of using “we” here. I really would not want to see you go through another mental meltdown even though it would probably raise the level of discourse on this forum…

People like you, can I use “you” here? Have engaged in a great deal of hyperbole about the US and its actions. We have invaded TWO nations, the first with widespread support, the second with far less, but given that actions in Bosnia and Kosovo never even got US Congressional approval much less the much vaunted UN imprimatur, I would hardly see how suddenly the US is doing anything it damn well wants by attempting over seven months to get the support of the “world community.” Who else have we targeted? Iran and North Korea. They are not threats in your view? Sorry, I am using “your” here… Then why are so many other nations involved in the negotiations to deal with them?

But then maybe so many people have lost their rights because of the Patriot Act? Hmmm? Who? And given the concern over the loss of rights under the Patriot Act, why are so many of “you” again apologies for the use of “you” here demanding that the rights of US forces be summarily dismissed to try them, convict them and throw away the key?

Abu Ghraib has never been proven to be anything more than an isolate incident involving a limited number of troops engaging in “abuse” for the most part it was not even “torture.” Despite all the hew and cry over Guantanamo, the “abuses” that have been alleged have often not been proven and the conditions there are probably better than at 95 percent of the domestic prisons and jails in the US.

Again, please explain to me how the US is engaging in "doing anything that “we” damned well want? Explain to me where the major loss of rights is. Explain to me what should be done with the prisoners in Guantanamo? Hmmm? What? Explain to me how US policy differs greatly from that of a nation like say Britain or France or hell even Germany… Explain to me why we must keep the prisoners in Guantanamo if sending them “home” involves a nation where their “rights” will not be protected? Explain to me how under international law, we should be trying them in US courts with the same rights as US citizens? Explain to me how the trials they were given under military tribunals before being sent to Guantanamo are different than past trials in military tribunals during past conflicts.

This should be good, but I guarantee that I will not be rolling around laughing when you respond. Given the selective “concern” that “you” and others of “your” ilk have distributed in the past, I see very little indication that these problems will be addressed in a realistic and sensible manner. “Your” feelings on the subject will no doubt trump anything that “we” might suggest be done about the problem. Right? haha

Being less cryptic: there are a number of nasty bastards making trouble. Some are terrorists, some insurgents, and some wear the uniform of the good guys. Those bastards, on both sides, they’re all for eye-for-an-eye reciprocity. Decent folks on all sides deserve better, and should emulate better.

Defeating terrorists does not mean beating them at their own game. Once again, this isn’t about them. It’s about you, about decency, legitimacy that doesn’t grow out of force alone, and about not losing those goods due to fear.

I’ve read the Conventions. I’ve read the Court’s judgment. I’ve read reactions going back to the establishment of this Cuban gulag. It was a bad idea, pushed for by the might-makes-right brigade, and supported (I think) too much out of fear and anger. It’s past time that the rule of fear ended, whether that’s in Baghdad, Kandahar, or Gitmo.


I’m still laughing.
I’m shaking my head, but I’m still laughing.

You don’t like the Supreme Court ruling? Ok. Take it up with them, or, if you’d be so good, explain the basis (legal or otherwise) for finding fault with it.

Proof? Nothing’s been proven… nothing’s been proven… neither that Iraq had WMD, nor that Saddam was a significant threat, nor that any of these actions were more than the results of a few bad apples. And yet, some demand action, isn’t that right? Some are so suggestive of systematic support, that conclusions can be drawn, isn’t that right.

Tide seems to be turning, and I feel fine.


oh yes, not bothered to answer those challenges right now: you broke it, you bought it. Here’s the broom, there’s the carpet… oops! Damn. The world looked under there. sigh Guess you’ll really have to clean it up this time. :s


I do not understand what you mean here. All of the inmates at Guantanamo have had a trial in a military tribunal. This is the norm in past conflicts. Why do you think that this should be different now? Is the conflict over? Should they be released? to which nation? under what conditions?

Why is there a loss of legitimacy? Is the US engaging in behavior that is somehow different from that of past wars? different from those engaged in by other nations during their wars? or is it due to a highly selective concern from highly biased anti-US protesters who are going to criticize us no matter what we do?

Really? Then be sure and tell me how non-uniformed actors engaging in terrorism who are not fighting for recognized states are covered?

What points do you agree with and how do you address the issue of non-state actors engaging in terrorism who are out of uniform?

Okay. What is your solution? US civil trials for all terrorists? followed by imprisonment in what? a federal penitentiary? release to their “home” country? what?

Too true……damage is done…… the true face of America has been revealed
I seriously doubt, given the Bush regime’s history, that anything will actually change……they’ll just send them off to a secret prison……
…Violence begets more violence……torture begets more torture……the horrific case of Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker is just one more example…

Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.

If you are looking to any insights to life at Guantanamo I recommend the following (should be some torrents around):

The Road to Guantanamo is a feature-length factual drama based on first hand interviews with the Tipton Three, the three male British prisoners released in the spring of last year from Guantanamo Bay. … anamo.html … nload.html

The Guantanamo Guidebook is particularly good……nothing like experiencing a little torture before you decide if it is necessary or not……they chose volunteers of different ages, ethnic backgrounds and political views…and setup a replica of Guantanamo ….hired ex US servicemen as the guards and told them to do as they do at Guantanamo …the volunteers that said they believed that Guantanamo was a necessary evil broke first… …… no children at this Guantanamo mock up….so I guess you could dismiss it on that fact……

The Guantanamo Guidebook

According to George Bush, ‘torture is never acceptable’. The interrogation techniques used in Guantanamo Bay have been calibrated to fall short of a legal definition of ‘torture’. However, legal experts say they do still constitute torture. The Guantanamo Guidebook reconstructs the regime at the US’s Cuban base. For 48 hours, seven volunteers are subjected to interrogation techniques known to be used in the camp, ranging from harassment and abuse to sensory deprivation – with shocking results. … cases.html

jwcampbell -
how many sights are you spamming with this London TV station fantasy crap?

Dear TainanCowboy,

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]jwcampbell -
how many sights are you spamming with this London TV station fantasy crap?[/quote]

Only one…why?..perhaps I should spam the gunography site that you frequent… to help them see the error of their ways… is this your point?
There’s a whole lot more fantasy crap there…

[quote=“fred smith”]
I do not understand what you mean here. All of the inmates at Guantanamo have had a trial in a military tribunal. [/quote]

I don’t know what you mean. According to a lawyer who argued the Hamdan case very few have been indicted, let only gone to trial. Certainly they have not been tried by the kind of military commision that the Supreme Court just ruled against.

If it was the norm, the courts would not have decide that it isn’t. If it was the norm the British attorney general would not have called them:

The fact is that the military commisions set up by the Bush admin were not standard.


The court covers this. Do you expect Jaboney to make up his own argument?

From Marty Lederman, a former OLC member:

The Court held that CA3’s reference to a conflict “not of an international character” refers not to a geographical limitation (i.e., “taking place only in one country”), but instead to a conflict that is not between nations.

To be sure, the geographical reading of the phrase, adopted by OLC and then by the President, is a plausible interpretation. And one very interesting (and potentially important) question in Hamdan is why the Court did not therefore defer to the President’s view, in light of precedents suggesting that the Executive’s interpretations of treaties should be given substantial weight in the Court’s construction.

But I think the Court’s alternative interpretation is the better reading, principally for the reasons explained at pages 35-37 of this article by Derek Jinks. After all, as even Justice Thomas concedes, Common Article 3 does apply to protect nonuniformed insurgents in an internal civil war – even if those insurgents might be barbaric, and fail to abide by CA3 themselves, and even if the rebels are attempting to overthrow the government. One would think that that sort of internal conflict with indigenous rebels would be the very last situation in which a multilateral treaty would impose the baseline norms of Common Article 3 – after all, such a wholly internal conflict is the type of conflict of least concern to the outside world, and is typically the sort of conflict in which the affected state’s prerogatives should be most respected. There’s no obvious reason why, if CA3 applies to such internal conflicts, the state parties to Geneva would not also have intended that it apply where the insurgent group attacks from outside a signatory state. Professor Jinks on the Administration’s interpretation: “[It] would create an inexplicable regulatory gap in the Geneva Conventions. On this reading, the Conventions would cover international armed conflicts proper and wholly internal armed conflicts, but would not cover armed conflicts between a state and a foreign-based (or transnational) armed group or an internal armed conflict that spills over an 1 international border into the territory of another state. There is no principled (or pragmatic) rationale for this regulatory gap.”

In any event, the Court’s interpretation is certainly a reasonable one. It was the interpretation adopted by Judge Williams in his separate D.C. Circuit panel opinion. It is the view that certain international tribunals have adopted (see page 8 and n.23 of this OLC opinion). And notably, no Justices of the Supreme Court indicated that the President’s alternative interpretation was the better reading of the treaty. (Justice Thomas merely concluded that the Court should defer to the President’s reading – and only one other Justice of the eight who decided the case (Justice Scalia) joined this conclusion. Justice Alito expressly declined to join that part of Justice Thomas’s dissent.)[/quote]

Justice Stevens wrote that military court martials would satisfy the requirements of “a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

This is a huge field, pitted with a lot of legal talk, and I’m not ashamed to say I am not entirely confident in everything I write. That said, it seems that the tribunals Fred described were the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. These were set up to determine whether all prisoners at Guantanamo were truly enemy combattants. Yes, everyone underwent such tribunals, and many were released because of them. However, even these tribunals were forced on the Bush admin after the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision.

These tribunals are not the same as the military commisions the Supreme Court just ruled against. The latter were designed to try prisoners for specific crimes. The fact that they have been so unsuccessful is another reason the supreme court was right to overturn them. Court martials are speedier, more just, and can proceed with due concern for both the safety of society and the rights of the accused.

“They’ve” been avoiding trials like the plague because their entire world rests on faith-based “evidence” – often “secret, faith-based evidence” – which doesn’t play out well in a courtroom setting.

Bullshit Fido. And you know it. Let’s have the names and the verficts then.


Please spook and broon, I am trying to raise the level of this thread. Don’t give Fred an in with your inanities.

Anyway, the silence on this topic once the facts were in has been revealing.

One more thing:

The court never said they would be given the same rights and protections as uniformed soldiers. They are not, for example, to be granted POW status, which means they can be interrogated (POWs cannot be interrogated according to the GC). In addition, let’s not forget that the court never suggested that the Guantanamo prisoners could not be held indefinitely. There are many provisions to the GC and the court decided that only some applied to Guananamo prisoners. Stop being so excitable and go read up on the topic.