England to US: "Please keep our terrorists - we don't want 'em!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is not one rule for US citizens and soldiers and another for Islamic Fundamentalists
Read the Geneva Convention(s) sometime. Pay special attention to those parts that define what is, and what is not, a soldier in uniform.

That part of the Geneva treaty was formed in order to prevent folks - like the death-cult bastards that we are currently up against - from hiding behind the skirts of their women (as they always do), while still expecting to be engaged as, and treated as, the soldiers that they never were.

I think we have made a mistake not "repatriating" these guys back to Afghanistan, where they could have disappeared into a cargo container in the hot sun.
That is the most sensible thing that anyone has said so far.
 
edited because I can't be bothered.

No, edited because you can't name a war where prisoners were tried in civil courts.

How come you are not arguing that Iraqi prisoners should be shipped to the US to stand trial? What makes Al Qaeda members superior and/or different than Iraqi soldiers?

If it is the lack of uniforms then maybe our own troops should wear whatever they want and argue for civil trials when captured. Their lawyers could demand forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, Miranda warnings, etc, at the trial. And since none of that is possible on a battlefield, they'd have to be released to continue the fight. Of course, nobody would demand such nonsense of any other nation - people like you only expect the US to contradict the rules of war in a way that makes it impossible to win!

Your whole argument is based on nonsense that has no historical or rational basis!

Keith
 
keith,

actually several U-boat men were seized at the tail end of WW2 and held as "unlawful combatants" and not POW, following which they were beaten, maltreated (to such an extent that one man killed himself). following a complaint from a US Naval officer (to the eternal credit of that service) the men were moved, but the maltreatment continued until the men were finally classified as POW.

"Unlawful combatants" were tried in US courts as is a matter of record - indeed the justification for the current system.
 
I don't want to get into a slanging match with someone I don't know over the internet, your tone is not appreciated.

Nuremburg. ''International Military Tribunal''. Were Canadians, Britons and others not involved in Afghanistan?

I'm not arguing for civil courts - openness and fairness is what I am arguing for.

How come you are not arguing that Iraqi prisoners should be shipped to the US to stand trial?

Since when did POW's that have not committed war crimes stand trial? You said ''we are at war'', yet this men are not covered by the Geneva Convention. Can't have it both ways. Which war anyway? War on Terror - that ain't ever ending it is political speak for ''open-ended''. Iraq? That has nothing to do with these guys.

Your constitution - rights not to be detained without charge. They are not American citizens, but why is there one rule for you and one for them?

Surprised by the implicit trust in what your govt tells you on this one. None of you trust the govt with the 2nd Amendment so why on this?

Oh yeah, it doesn't affect you personally - I forgot.
 
"Unlawful combatants" were tried in US courts as is a matter of record - indeed the justification for the current system.

Nonsense. Combatants captured out of uniform are tried in military tribunals; generally as spies or saboteurs.

Even US citizens captured out of uniform and fighting for the other side have been tried by the military. The best known case is of an immigrant who returned to Germany in WWII and was later captured with some NAZI saboteurs on the US east coast. He was tried by military tribunal. The case was challenged, but the tribunal was upheld by the US Supreme Court.


Here's a link to the Supreme Court case on the subect: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/317/1.html
 
Definition of lawful combatant from Britannica:
from war, law of

Lawful combatants
Those who may lawfully take part in hostilities are those who would be entitled to prisoner-of-war status if captured. Any other person taking part in a conflict may be treated as an unprivileged belligerent, or a franc-tireur, and he may be punished if captured. Article 4 of the third Geneva Convention of 1949 and article 43 of the first Protocol of 1977 provide that a lawful combatant is generally a member of the armed forces of a state. The term also includes members of the merchant marine and inhabitants of unoccupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces until the territory has been occupied.

A spy is in a unique position, since he is often a member of the armed forces of a state; but if he acts in disguise in the zone of operations of an enemy in order to obtain information to pass on to his own forces, he may be punished provided he has a trial.

A mercenary is not protected at all; he has the right to be neither a combatant nor a prisoner of war. A mercenary is defined in the first Protocol of 1977 (which neither the United Kingdom nor the United States has ratified) as a person who is specially recruited to take part in a conflict, who is motivated essentially by private gain, and who is paid substantially more than the ordinary armed forces of the state to which he has been recruited. He must not be a national of the recruiting state or a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict.

Guerrilla fighters are not solely a modern phenomenon, although during and after World War II they became a common feature of armed conflicts, especially those occurring in the developing world. The third Geneva Convention of 1949 required what is called an organized resistance movement to possess four characteristics before its members could be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. These were: (1) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, (2) having a fixed and distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, (3) carrying arms openly, and (4) conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In time, it became apparent that two of these four conditions were difficult for guerrilla fighters to meet. Were guerrillas to wear a fixed and distinctive sign recognizable at a distance or carry arms openly, they could hardly operate with any safety in occupied territory. The first Protocol of 1977 made a number of important changes that bind those states that are parties to it. For example, one of the major problems with recognizing guerrilla fighters as lawful combatants is that they may not, in fact, distinguish themselves from the civilian population--in which case, all civilians are placed at risk. Therefore, article 43 of the Protocol requires all combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. However, even if a combatant does not do this, he will still be entitled to treatment as a lawful combatant if he carries his arms openly during each military engagement and during such time as he is visible to the adversary while engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

A member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict will lose his status as a prisoner of war upon capture if he commits an act of hostility while wearing civilian clothes. In the case of Osman Bin Mohammed v. Public Prosecutor (1968), the Privy Council in London held that members of the Indonesian armed forces who had landed in Singapore during an armed conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia were not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war after having placed a bomb in a civilian building that caused the deaths of civilians. This loss of prisoner status will also apply, among the states that are parties to the first Protocol of 1977, if their combatants do not at least carry their arms openly, as described above.


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
 
Nuremburg. ''International Military Tribunal''. Were Canadians, Britons and others not involved in Afghanistan?

It doesn't matter. There were thousands of military tribunals conducted independently by various nations during WWII. The fact that Nuremberg was conducted jointly doesn't have any bearing on the other tribunals that were not conducted jointly.

Since when did POW's that have not committed war crimes stand trial?

Never. And only Al Qeada members associated with war crimes will stand before a tribunal. The rest (the majority) will just remain locked up until the war is over, just as has always been done, in every war, by every civilized nation.

Your constitution - rights not to be detained without charge. They are not American citizens, but why is there one rule for you and one for them?

You are confused (again) between warfare and civil offenses. US citizens fighting for the opposing force are not generally tried in civil courts, but in military tribunals (if they are guilty of war crimes). If not guilty of an actual war crime they MAY be tried before a civil court on treason charges, an offense spelled out in the US Constitution.


You said ''we are at war'', yet this men are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Nonsense again. Al Qeada has declared war and struck the first blow. All prisoners detained are visited by the red cross on a regular basis and all aspects of their treatment are in accordance with the Geneva Convention. They have "three hots and a cot", receive and send mail, etc, and that is about all they are entitled to. Those associated with atrocities will be tried before a tribunal. Those not associated with crimes will remain in detention until the war is over.

Follow this link and read the case to understand the constitutional basis all this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/317/1.html

Keith
 
The current war as well as all wars past and present.

If you missed the beginning of the war, it began when Ossama Bin Laden declared Jihad (war) against the US. The war was politely ignored until an attack on 9/11/01 that resulted in a lot of civilian deaths here in the US. I'm surprised you hadn't heard about it since it was in all the papers...

Keith
 
Then prisoners will remain in detention until they die of old age. It's been done before - look back to some of the wars in Europe that went on for generations.

Human beings choose their own fate. These men chose poorly.

Keith
 
Micro,

I did read your post but it doesn't really address the crux of the issue. It states that guerilla fighters lose their POW status if associated with war crimes, but fails to detail what status they then hold...
It also fails to address how those not associated with a particular state (Al Qaeda) are designated.

The US argues that these persons are "battlefield detainees" and I believe this to be correct. It would make little sense to give such persons status as civil criminals and accord them special rights and privileges denied other prisoners of war.

Keith
 
What does it do? Explain the definition of "combatant" under current international law.
Not really. It gives Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.'s version.

The international treaties define the law. They don't require Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.'s interpretation in order to be enforced.
 
Keith,

That would be the ideal, except that the US has repeatedly refused to grant POW status to anyone it currently detains. The fact that they have not done this raises some questions.

Also, "unlawful combatant" is a misnomer. As microbalrog pointed out, the international legislation only defines what category of persons enjoy legal protection when captured by an opposing force - and is silent on those who do not meet this criteria. Since most here would argue that nothing is illegal unless someone makes a law against it, I'd argue this means their detention as unlawful combatants is wrong (though not if they made them POW).

Of course, those of them who are suspected of offences against whoever should be tried in a civil court as per normal.
 
A lot of this was hashed over here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...page=25&highlight=america admits&pagenumber=3

You may want to note: Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)

The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.


And you Brits may remember this as one of the many reasons that we won't give the rats to you to take care of: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9741&highlight=america+admits
 
Also, "unlawful combatant" is a misnomer. As microbalrog pointed out, the international legislation only defines what category of persons enjoy legal protection when captured by an opposing force - and is silent on those who do not meet this criteria. Since most here would argue that nothing is illegal unless someone makes a law against it, I'd argue this means their detention as unlawful combatants is wrong (though not if they made them POW).

There are basically two kinds of law generally: positive and negative. The Geneva Convention is an attempt at positive law applied to an area where once there was only seldom observed custom. The GC positively identifies those that it seeks to protect, and by exclusion, defines those it does not.

The GC proscribes POW status for the AQ. They do not meet the criteria for prisoners of war under any of the Articles. They are "extragovernmental" for lack of a better term. They were not part of any of the de facto governmental armed forces of Afghanistan (a duly recognized "party" under the GC) at the commencement of open hostilities between that country and the allies who went in to overthrow the Taliban. Out of some nearly 20 million Afghanis of all ethnic groups, some 600+ people found on the ground there were detained as "unlawful combatants." One might think that given the odds, the major ethnic group detained would be Afghani. However, it is not. The major number of the detainees held at Guantanamo come from 43 different countries, with those of the Saudi Arabian peninsula dramatically overrepresented.

Parse the UC descripton. Unlawful. Illegal. Outside of the law. Against the law. Outlaws. Combatant. Insert you favorite synonym, but the definition of combatant would at a minimum mean someone who was caught doing behavior one might casually discern was hostile in its intent towards the capturing party. These people, rudely interrupted by the US Armed Forces during their Lonely Planet fully automatic getaways in Fundamentaliststan, fall outside of the positive protections of the GC. They were not nation state actors. They were not Afghani regulars. They were not Afghani irregulars. They defy description under the GC. Also, as non-citizens of the US, it is well established that they enjoy no access to the courts here when not actually detained in the the civil jurisdiction of the United States.

These detainees have no cognizable rights under domestic or international law. They should be greatful that they were not subjected to summary execution by warlords in Afghanistan, who'd have easily guaranteed that nobody in the West would be clamoring about their "rights" today.

It is so difficult to feel any empathy for these yahoos. Never fear, the same old crowd of lefty pro-criminal legal activists and the legion of dictator fawning, cyclopean "human rights" activists will keep their eye on us exclusively, trying to make us regret not shooting them outright as one would rabid dogs.
 
That would be the ideal, except that the US has repeatedly refused to grant POW status to anyone it currently detains.

Because the category of prisoners accorded POW status are specifially identified in the Geneva Convention! Al Qaeda fighters do fit the criteria because they fight for no particular state and wear no uniform.
That's why those uniformed Taliban fighters HAVE BEEN granted POW status and repatriated long ago, while those associated with Al Qaeda are still detained. The war with Afghanistan is over - the war with Al Qaeda is not.

Battlefield detainees are those caught without uniforms and not associated with a sovereign state; though they are still largely accorded the same treatment as POW's. Read the Geneva Convention and note what it says in articles 4 and 5. Article 4 identifies categories to be identified as POW's. Article 5 declares that all captured belligerents who do not fit the POW criteria MUST be subjected to a military tribunal!

You are arguing that the US should violate the Geneva Convention.

Read it yourself: http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm
 
boats,

unlawful means "against the law" - there is no law here, only a definition of someone that has legal protection under the Geneva Convention. I am not stating that these people have those rights automatically (though see below).

keith,

article 5 specifically states that the combatants SHOULD be treated as POW until a competent tribunal assesses their status:

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.


Maybe you should read it?
 
such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
What makes you think that a "competent tribunal" hasn't already made that assessment?

We stopped having to report back to you guys in 1776 don't ya know? :p
 
And you Brits may remember this as one of the many reasons that we won't give the rats to you to take care of: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...=america+admits

Just more evidence of what a perverse, low, and retrograde system of asylum and criminal justice the British have at every level.

Sad when their own Government officially recognizes this incompetence and by default asks the US to try the terrorists who are UK citizens instead.
 
article 5 specifically states that the combatants SHOULD be treated as POW until a competent tribunal assesses their status:

Yup, and all the prisoners at Gitmo are being given the treatment accorded a POW. Three meals a day, exercise, showers, red cross visits, etc.

Were you laboring under the mistaken assumption that they were being mistreated in some way?

Keith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top