I’m not sure the cult of Dionysus counts as a religious belief these days, but I could be wrong.
Surely a step in guaranteeing humane treatment would be to ensure with absolute transparency that these inmates deserve to be there. Thus far there is stil a cloud on this issue, and the release of detainees up to two years after they were initially nabbed does in no way lend confidence that all are deserving of continued incarceration. The supreme court adds further concern.
HG
I’ll drink to that!
The US government has been treating these prisoners humanely all along. The International REd Cross has complete access to ALL prisoners. The prisoners however are not allowed complete, unrestricted access to their lawyers. Any sessions are monitored. The prisoners were all given military hearings but only 10 have been officially charged. This does not differ appreciably from the rate of convictions for the 1,000 plus “terrorists” that have been rounded up in Europe in the past four years.
Mostly because of endless strings of allegations about alleged abuse. How many of those have actually panned out and is there extensive reporting when they do not pan out? I don’t think so. We should and must have a national debate about how and why these prisoners are in Guantanamo and what should be done with them. Can you understand though why I am so happy about this debate taking place now? and in Congress? Europe should also be a part of this debate and the media there should investigate a bit more what has been going on in their own countries so that the “outrage” can be a bit more equally portioned out, eh? haha
Ironically, more could be released but the inability to “guarantee” that they will not be tortured or abused when they return to their home countries is what is holding things up. Get it? We are treating them so badly that they should remain in Guantanamo since we cannot guarantee the same level of treatment for them when not there? Hoo boy.
Mostly to my understanding regarding jurisdiction. Again, I have no problem with that, but these people are not legitimate POWs and they have deliberately avoided wearing uniforms and targeted civilians. THAT should not earn them the same rights as granted under the Geneva Conventions and I would have a problem with that. Again, this is not a matter of being treated humanely. It is more about what rights to lawyers and such they should have and their final status.
Anyway, onto Congress. A good public debate is just what is needed and ain’t I pleased as punch about that. Yippee!
While I’m confident the detainees are being treated humanely, for me a far greater concern is that there maybe those held that shouldn’t be there.
I’m also unconvinced militia groups don’t deserve the Geneva conventions, or at least the spirit of these conventions.
Need some evidence on this call, Fred. It appears to me you are mistaking the misguided foot soldiers of the Taliban with international terrorists. The war in Afghanistan was a civil war until the US and others jumped in. Uniforms seem to have been pretty much disregarded by all sides, more likely an economic imperative than a desire to avoid detection.
Agree with your gleeful call for wider discussion. As it has been, I believe the presence of Gitmo has undermined US credibility; let’s get it out in the open.
HG
They have all been given hearings. Few however have been officially charged.
Well, you can be unconvinced all you want but the Geneva Convention is quite clear about who qualifies and who does not. Wearing clearly recognizable uniforms is one of those very clear requirements. Otherwise, the “soldier” is a sabateur, agent provocateur, etc. and can be summarily executed. This was the norm in all past conflicts.
How many al Qaeda do you know who announce that they are al Qaeda militants? How many do you know who avoid civilian casualties and targets? What kind of evidence do you need? Hello?
Not at all. There are NO Taliban soldiers in Gitmo or Guantanamo. The incarcerated include only al Qaeda and who would you like us to turn them over to? I think the US government would be happy to send a few more hundred back to their respective nations but then we are blocked from doing so because we cannot guarantee their protections, their rights. I think that we should close Guantanamo and send all inmates as political asylum seekers to whatever nation that wants to raise its voice loudest regarding its “concerns.” How would that be? haha
Perhaps you are right but my understanding is that most in Guantanamo are there because they have been specifically identified as a terrorist risk not a “fighter” in support of a Taliban Afghanistan. They have been given hearings. What they have not been given is court martial style trials. And why should they? Are they legitimate fighters fighting legitimately under the recognized norms as drawn up under the Geneva Convention? Rather than have this as a one-sided debate about why the US has to do this or that, how about some more from the other posters as to just how these inmates qualify for Geneva Convention rights. Again, I am not talking about humane treatment. That is a given (though in all fairness, most of these inmates hardly deserve such treatment and I would be very doubtful that if the tables were turned that they would be so civilized). So, let’s have it from our experts on this forum. Where exactly in the Geneva Convention does it say these types should have the same protection accorded to uniformed soldiers who are clearly identified?
Yes, and let’s also have a wider discussion of the 1,000 terrorists who have been rounded up in Europe since 911. We have processed about 600 (now down to about 450) in Guantanamo, by rights given the greater numbers and equally low “conviction” rates, I think our European friends should get busy answering a few questions as well. Fair?
In the meantime, Rove must be laughing laughing laughing about the prospects of a very public debate about this subject prior to the midterm elections. Who will the Democrats call to discuss this? Pelosi? Cindy Sheehan? Hollywood actors like Susan Sarandon? Sean Penn? Barbra Streisand? Michael Moore? I can hardly wait.
I think that this article pretty much sums up the issues raised in the debate quite succinctly…
[quote]The treatment of the 158 detainees seems humane, and the Administration seems right in its basic position that international terrorists fanatically bent on mass murder are not entitled to Geneva’s protections for POWs. As defined by Geneva, not all prisoners captured in war are “prisoners of war.” The convention implicitly recognizes a category of detainees, long-known as “unlawful combatants,” who can be treated far more harshly. Members of and collaborators with Al Qaeda, perhaps including all of the Guantanamo 158, fit into that category.
The distinction is important primarily because unlawful combatants can be interrogated more aggressively, detained indefinitely, and tried with fewer procedural protections than POWs. Geneva provides (in Article 17) that once POWs have given their name, rank, date of birth, and serial number, “no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted … to secure from them information of any kind whatsoever,” and that POWs “who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” But Geneva requires no such kid-glove treatment for unlawful combatants. Another international convention does prohibit torturing any detainees, but not all coercive interrogation and rough treatment is torture. Insistent and vehement questioning of unlawful combatants during prolonged isolation should qualify as legitimate, especially if the information sought could save lives.
Geneva also requires (in Article 118) that POWs, unless convicted of war crimes, be “released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.” Unlawful combatants can be locked up indefinitely, even if there is no evidence to implicate them in specific war crimes. An alternative basis for indefinite detention would be that there will be no “cessation of hostilities” for years in the Al Qaeda jihad.
So, complying with Geneva would not compromise our security needs. The problem with the Administration’s position is that it appears to have flouted (or at best wriggled around) Article 5 of Geneva, which states that “should any doubt arise” as to the status of captured fighters, “such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have claimed that there is no doubt that all Guantanamo detainees are unlawful combatants. But the government has not (at this writing) bothered to put any evidence before any tribunal. It’s hard to see a good reason not to go through this modest exercise in due process and give any detainee who claims that he is a POW, not a terrorist, a chance to make his case. Surely, the United States would object if any other nation followed our example by issuing an executive fiat classifying dozens of captured American special forces operatives or bomber pilots as unlawful combatants and terrorists.
The hearings need not be long or elaborate. Proof to a three-member military tribunal that a non-Afghan detainee had joined Al Qaeda or been trained at an Al Qaeda camp should suffice to classify him as an unlawful combatant. On the other hand, an Afghan foot soldier for the Taliban—as distinguished from a Taliban commander who had actively coordinated with terrorist leaders—would qualify as a POW under a generous reading of Geneva.
Here’s why: Geneva’s little-noticed Article 4(A)(1) awards POW status to “members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict” or “members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces”—even, arguably, if they wear no identifying uniform or sign, even if they commit prosecutable war crimes, even if the “Party” is not a recognized government (there’s a bit of ambiguity on this point), and even if it systematically violates the laws of war. This definition seems broad enough to fit low-level fighters for the Taliban, which was the de facto (if unrecognized) government of Afghanistan. It does not fit Al Qaeda fighters.
Some human rights activists claim that those Al Qaeda fighters who were captured on the Taliban front lines qualify as POWs because they were “part of” Afghanistan’s armed forces, but this seems wrong. All members of Al Qaeda, wherever captured, took their orders not from the Taliban but from Osama bin Laden and his non-Afghan lieutenants, who were not the de facto government of any nation. And all are would-be terrorists—part of a worldwide conspiracy to infiltrate and murder civilian populations—whose release would endanger many lives, and whose information (if extracted) might save many lives.
The second relevant Geneva definition, Article 4(A)(2), adds to the POW category members of militias and armed groups operating independent of any nation 's “armed forces” only if they have a responsible command structure, wear a uniform or “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,” carry arms openly, and operate “in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” A group must fit all four requirements for its members to get POW status. Al Qaeda fits none of them.
The logic underlying Article 4(A)(2) is that saboteurs, partisans, spies, and terrorists (as we now call them) who infiltrate civilian populations dressed as civilians to destroy life or property, or who endanger civilians by hiding among them when enemy forces approach, or whose commanders allow them to violate the laws of war, are uniquely dangerous and not entitled to the protection of those laws.
Some U.S. officials also see Taliban foot soldiers as unlawful combatants. But this is a stretch. Such a position could come back to haunt our own special forces and would be hard to reconcile with past practices, including the POW status accorded to captured German soldiers during World War II (in the midst of the ultimate war crime—the Holocaust), captured Chinese during the Korean War, and captured Vietcong during the Vietnam War. Besides, we have no compelling reason to deny POW status to Taliban foot soldiers: Unlike Al Qaeda members, they would have little if any useful information and would pose no threat to us if released.
The bottom line is that the Geneva Conventions, properly interpreted, are not an anachronistic nuisance but a potent tool in our war effort. But unless we comply with Geneva, and act as though we care about complying, our growing reputation as an international scofflaw will congeal and become a potent rallying cry for those who would sabotage the war effort. This, in turn, would cost us critical opportunities to nail Al Qaeda terrorists in Europe, where so many lurk.
It’s true that many of our European critics are anti-American hypocrites who habitually turn a blind eye to egregious human rights violations in the Arab world and in Castro’s Cuba. Many others, however, simply want to see us practice the humility and respect for the rule of law that we preach.[/quote]
theatlantic.com/doc/200202u/ … onventions
I have also highlighted the area where the administration’s critics have issue with it.