P.O.W. or "Unlawful Combatants"

Originally posted by odin
So what are you worried about,its America that has them!
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Xelios
However, these are not regular circumstances.
Click to expand...
America does not have them. President Bush and John Ashcroft have them. No, these are not normal circumstances.

The internment was authorized by presidential order, the same procedure by which the Bush administration will allow the military to try suspected terrorists in secret, without requirements of due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt or adequate counsel. The secretary of defense - the prosecution, in other words - will choose the lawyers for the accused. The military judges can impose death or imprisonment, and there is no right of appeal to a civilian court. For all we civilians know, someone may already have been executed, such is the secrecy surrounding the tribunals.

And how does the administration explain this denial of rights to people who are only suspects and not convicts, rights that America purports to cherish and chides other countries for violating? Attorney General John Ashcroft said "Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution." The president himself declares "...that suspects are not suspects. They are unlawful combatants who seek to destroy our country and our way of life."

No. In the American system of justice, defendants do not become "unlawful combatants" until a court says so. And it is the courts, not the attorney general, who decide whether or not someone has committed war crimes. In a way, Ashcroft's ignorance of, or contempt for, the presumption of innocence is even more shocking than Bush's. Ashcroft went to law school.

Peace.
 
All very good views, the US Gov. is gonna have its hands full on this one. :D
 
I may have been wrong, may have:

ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

What constitutes a "competent tribunal"? If someone can answer this we'd be a lot better off in arguments.
 
One more thing none of the former Afghan governments were part of any of the Geeneva conventions. Plus the Taliban wasn't a legitimate government, never recognized by the US or UN.

For that reason they aren't POWs, just detainees. Regardless they should be treated humanley, but firmly.
 
From the Horses Mouth

"Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens, as we gather tonight, our nation is at war..."

I am sure those non-prisoners-of-war down in Cuba would love to have heard the State of the Union Address as well.

Peace.
 
Goofyfish,

It's a pleasure reading your posts. I wish more people had sharp minds when dealing with social issues as you do. Unfortunatly, it is dissapointing to see how many people don't understand the fundamentals of democracy and fair play. I've observed that people have been becoming less and less intelligent, and unintelligent people tend to make decisions based on their emotions and not their minds. It appears as if there is a decay of common sense occuring in America. Just look at the President American's elected. If George W Bush received an IQ test, it would show that he is mildly retarded(IQ 90-95), but that didn't stop him from (almost) getting the majority vote.

To get to the point, you're logical explanations on these boards are irrelevent to many people. After all, how do you logically prove something to an illogical person.

As the saying goes "Democracy may be the perfect system in an educated society, but in an uneducated society, it can be worse than dictatorship". Maybe instead of focusing on changing the minds of uneducated and unintelligent people, you should focus your energy on teaching kids about common sense so the next generation won't be as messed up as this one is.

Tom
 
What's so hard about decency?

I just wonder what's going to happen when this is all over and the World Court asks Mr Bush to make an appearance. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States, and were I to be the next executive, I am not sure I would be prepared to hand the prior executive over to the World Court. It is an interesting conundrum; let's just hope the world sees the futility in calling the United States to answer for its human rights record before a court of law. That said, it is worth noting that the preferable to avoid such embarrassing and inadequate occasions.
The Washington Post quotes an unnamed administration official making the same point: “We already know the end point, which is they’re not POWs.... Now the question is, why are they not POWs.” Overall, the statements emanating from the White House and other sections of the government are full of such doubletalk, and are aimed at confusing public opinion while proceeding with the same brutal policy. The Bush administration is also counting on the general lack of knowledge in the American public about the Geneva Convention and is resorting to verbal trickery and outright lies to justify its position.

The first lie is that the US can choose whether or not to abide by the Geneva Convention. Article 1 of the Conventions states: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” Article 2 says that “the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or 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.”

Both the US and Afghanistan are signatories to the 1949 treaty. The Bush administration declared a “war on terrorism,” and went to war against Afghanistan, publicly stating that the ousting of the Taliban regime was its objective. The US initiated bombing raids and dispatched ground troops. But when enemy fighters are captured, including Taliban, the government claims they are not prisoners of war and their treatment is not governed by international law.

Even if the US wants to claim that they are not POWs because the US never formally declared war, this doesn’t pass muster, as the Geneva Convention does not require that both parties recognize a state of war. This is a ludicrous argument in any event, as the people of Afghanistan undoubtedly interpreted the dropping of multi-ton bombs and the ravaging of their country as a clear sign that the US was waging war against them.

Bush also claims the reason these captured fighters are not POWs is because “al Qaeda is not a known military. These are killers, these are terrorists, they know no countries.” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld commented: “They will not be characterized as prisoners of war, because that is not what they are. They’re terrorists.”

But all that has been established about these prisoners is that they were captured by the US in course of an invasion of Afghanistan. Many of those fighting with the Taliban came into Afghanistan after the US launched the war and may not have had any connection with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

But the Bush administration purposely describes the Guantanamo prisoners as including both Taliban and al Qaeda, using the terms interchangeably, in an effort to blur any distinction and justify their refusal to grant any of them POW status. Calculating that members of al Qaeda are less likely to qualify as prisoners of war, they utilize this verbal trick in an attempt to cover up their blatant violation of international law.

Article 5 of the Geneva Convention states: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”

In other words, it is not up to the US to dictate who is a POW and who is not. Furthermore, until their status is determined, they must be provided with all the protections of a prisoner of war. All those detained have the right to refuse to provide any information aside from name, rank and serial number. Whether or not they are determined by a tribunal at a later time to be terrorists, or defendants to be tried for war crimes, can have no bearing on their treatment upon capture. (Randall, Kate)
Click to expand...
To my international planetmates, I'm really, really sorry. Really. I didn't vote for the guy. This sort of lexical duplicity is exactly what our nation has been working toward. When I think of the moralist streak running so thickly through our American conservatism, I wonder why it is that conservatives do the greatest damage to the moral structure. To play semantic games in order to license cruelty is, unfortunately, the result of some strange jealousy that pushes conservatism to destroy the very morality it fears for. I do not know the object of that jealousy; I wish I did. But how it is that the United States can spend so much of its deserved credibility on such petty squabbling: is it so damn hard to just be decent once in a while?

No tyranny but our own. No freedom but that which we grant. No law but our law. I don't get what's so hard about Liberty and Justice for all. Really, it seems easier than this.

For any of you who recall when Mr Bush lamented that he did not understand why they hated us ... I hope you understand that he truly doesn't get it.

my best gift is hope,
Tiassa :cool:
 
The longer I watch, the more the ignorance and complacency of the general populace astounds me. Bush & Co. continue to point out how the detainees are being treated humanely, and Americans shrug their shoulders and say “well… ok, then.”

The issue is not whether the US is mistreating the prisoners. There is no evidence for this. The issue is whether they legally "are" or "are not" to be considered prisoners of war. I believe this is a complex legal issue which should be determined objectively and not as a matter of convenience or expediency.

The US government has made a grave mistake in this matter. First they came out with the Military Tribunals of the executive order. In the face of the huge outcry at home and abroad they have backpedaled substantially to the point that the Tribunals may not even be used and, if they are, they hardly resemble the original design. Then they said they do not recognize any rights to the prisoners and, again, after much pressure from at home and abroad, they are, in fact, giving the prisoners things like visits from the Red Cross etc.

If the US had announced, "We will establish a fair judicial procedure to determine if and which prisoners are, in fact, POWs and which are legally common criminals. Once that has been determined, they will be afforded all the protections and guarantees of domestic and international laws and treaties" then the whole world could only have praised that and, in fact, there might be little difference with what is actually being done now. The administration’s claim that these people are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention is only a half-truth. A blanket determination by an executive officer that these are not prisoners of war (rather than a case-by-case determination by a competent military tribunal) violates the Convention, at least in spirit if not in word. While we do not have to entertain baselessly silly assertions of POW status (e.g. people arrested for weapons offenses who claim to be POWs because the courtroom flag has a fringe on it), it seems to me that the Geneva Convention mandates a competent tribunal to determine status when there is a credible reason to believe that an individual may be a prisoner of war. And the conflict in Afghanistan looks a lot like a war to me.

So, while the US Government may not have done anything technically wrong yet, they are doing the right things for the wrong reasons. If they had said all along "We intend to give them all these rights because that is the right and ethical thing to do" the whole world would have admired this. But by declaring they were severely limiting the rights of the prisoners and then only giving in, inch by inch, due to public pressure, they have shown their concern is not with ethics or human rights. This is what China does when it frees political prisoners due to outside pressure. Right thing to do, wrong reason.

Peace.
 
this is a precarious situation, if you go with the rules... you risk letting many people go who could end up being involved in future attacks..
also much of the information is very sensitive, and here say.. so it wouldnt be admissable in standard courts, or would require compromising sources...

if you dont go by the rules, what you stand for is gone, and you make the propaganda of the terrorist alot more legitmate...
but it also scares me because if they ignore the rules now, at what point do they go back to the rules?

these men are POWs, you can try and label them detaineeswhat you want, but you want to call it a war on terrorism... so be it... bush, and rumsfeld know the truth.. its the matter of weighing the lives of these men against any possible lives detaineeing them, and interogating them saves..
and for this to happen the rules go out the window...

wish it was like the movies where the hero plays by the rules, still beats the villan..gets the girl..and everyone goes home happy...
but its not.. call me selfish but i prefer these men lose their rights then me or anyone i know losing our lives...
 
Im surprised someone hasn't ALREADY taken Bush to the international court for Breaches of the geneva convention (it would be the BIGGEST joke if bush was convicted of war crimes over this)
 
Asguard,

Who do you think owns the International Criminal Court???


Tom
 
Thats true i surpose to. Its a sad day when we show people like Binladin that they are right.
 
PUC--no longer just the Public Utilities Commission

US Soldier Accused of Assaulting Afghan Prisoner
Colonel Roger King, a spokesman at U.S. military headquarters at Bagram air base, north of Kabul, said the soldier was seen striking an Afghan detainee on the head with the butt of his M-4 carbine . . . .

. . . . "He was wrong, and he got called on it, and he got called on it by his own unit," said King, who called the incident an "aberration." The judiciary process should be completed by next week, King added.

He said U.S. officials considered the assaulted Afghan to be a "person under control," or PUC.

King said that due to the status of the prisoner as a PUC, as opposed to a prisoner of war, he was not necessarily protected by the Geneva Convention.

"We are not fighting a uniformed army that represents a nation-state," King said. "The Geneva Conventions don't necessarily apply."

But he added: "(Prisoners) should still be treated with dignity and respect."
Click to expand...
I guess we should lay off the Bush Administration, eh? After all, it's an aberration. And it's not like we had to invent words to create this state for prisoners, right? I mean, this is all normal and dandy, right?

E Pluribus Unum? My ass. In God we trust? Hardly. I think the motto for this nation ought to be, "We are the United States of America; get the hell used to it."

I mean, things happen. You can't expect perfection. Hell, it appears you can't even expect dignity. But such is the will of the people.

A few interesting juxtapositions:

• It took Democrats to change me from a leftist into a centrist. After Clinton was elected, all it took was the GOP to push me right back out to the left. (Contract On America, gov't shutdowns, Newt whining about the plane, Bob Dole rescuing Clinton from the Sista Souljah flap ....)

• It took a video game clan (DAMN for Rainbow Six) to make me appreciate Vanilla Ice (Boom by the Bloodhound Gang) and four seconds of Rob van Winkle speaking to the cameras to put me on the floor laughing at him again (remarks concerning Queen's Under Pressure)

• The Bush administration keeps hedging toward legitimacy, but cannot seem to win my favor. I have to admit that while I disapprove of a number of his policies, it is the administration's conduct during the Afghani Bush War and the War on Terror that keeps me absolutely pinned to the left. I would try the view from elsewhere just for a lark--since I know now that it's not deadly to at least try--but I cannot think of anything that would bring be back to the center when my country declares me a criminal on two counts (Patriot Act, Drug War), maintains a war against my community (pot smokers), bullies its neighbors ("You're either wit' us or agin' us"), and continues to seek ways to circumvent both national and international law.

To put it another way, in terms of the other juxtapositions, imagine some circumstance by which the Bush administration could win my respect.

Unlawful Combatant and Person Under Control designations will cross-check me, throw the elbow, and leave me leaning against the leftmost wall.

We, who go forth in the alleged names of Liberty and Equality, must invent reasons to circumvent our own laws and the international laws we agree to.

So how does it go: It's the law because we say so and we're the United States of America?

Maybe it's time to think about abandoning my home sweet home and seek more loving, more compassionate, more intelligent pastures abroad.

I think of those silly PSA's ... I am an American. Yeah. That and three bucks gets you a cup of coffee in this town.

I can't wait until Starbucks and Anheuser-Busch are pledging "reconstruction" funds in South America for the Drug War.

In the meantime, will American dissenters be viewed as supporting terrorism and therefore subject to the Bush Administration's denunciation of human rights? Imagine that: An American, arrested for speaking one's mind, denied the complement of guaranteed rights because the Bush administration has invented words to take the place of reality.

The new Miranda Act in the US:

• You do not have the right to remain silent.
• You do not have the right to legal counsel.
• In fact, you have no rights whatsoever, so f--k off and die.

Welcome to America, the land of Freedom and Opportunity.

Wow, what about Iraq? Won't GWB junior be pissed when he has to grant captured Iraqis POW status?

Or should we hold a pool here at Sciforums? Guess the new terminology, win the pool?

What strange designation will Bush give the Iraqis to circumvent the international obligations to humanity?

Bush and his cronies ought to be tried for war crimes.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
I await the return of the righty's with baited breath.....

The fence is the best place to sit, you get to see everything and noone shoots at you!
 
LET'S REBUILD THE TWIN TOWERS IN N.Y. . . . & STICK ANOTHER PAIR IN KABUL!

I'm madder than a window washer with a busted squeegee over people who don't think we should rebuild the World Trade Center.

I say we rebuild them double - put two Twin Towers in New York and two more smack in the middle of Afghanistan. And we oughta throw in a replica of the Pentagon in downtown Kabul for good measure.

The sight of those towers rising over the sand dunes will drive Taliban terrorists insane for years to come.

When they look up and see the new Twin Towers staring down at them, they'll realize they took their best shot at America - and we came back stronger than ever.

And at the same time the new towers will serve as a shining symbol of hope for friendly Afghani people who were happy to see America come to their rescue.

When we finish building the new Twin Towers over there we can let the good people of Afghanistan have free tours - and even ride in the elevators up and down all day long.

I say we should even let one of them cut the ribbon at the opening ceremony. Heaven knows they suffered under the Taliban long enough - they deserve a break.

Once the buildings open for business, we'll reserve the top 10 floors of each of the towers over there for our military operations - Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines - just in case.

And the FBI and CIA can put high-powered spy-cams on the top floor to keep an eye on everything. From that high up they can monitor just about anything going on in that part of the world, because there are no other tall buildings to block the view.

Then if Saddam Hussein or anyone gets any wise ideas, we can launch our bombers from the top of the towers and drop an A-bomb here or there to snap everyone back in line.

Chances are we won't even need to build offices in the new Pentagon. The building can just serve as a memorial - and a big five-sided reminder of why we swept away the Taliban like garbage.

And so the new Twin Towers and Pentagon can never be destroyed, we'll make them out of super-strong reinforced steel - the kind we use for nuclear plants and prisons.

That way Osama bin Laden can hit them with rockets and missiles and even bomb the basement - and not even knock a picture off the wall!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top