Road to Guantanamo

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74
who here has been to Gitmo?

Who here is an expert on Gitmo?

Who here knows someone who might have slept someone who has ben to or knows the least bit about Gitmo?

just curious...

I've never been to the sun, but I have a pretty good idea that it's hot.

And I'm gonna venture that Uranus is rather chilly.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: palehorse74
who here has been to Gitmo?

Who here is an expert on Gitmo?

Who here knows someone who might have slept someone who has ben to or knows the least bit about Gitmo?

just curious...

What difference does that make? I don't care is they are given feather pillows and eat New York Steak prepared by Wolfgang Puck every day. It's wrong to hold people for years under lock and key without trial and you know it. Put yourself in that position if it's difficult to grasp.

would you prefer we decapitate them on TV? or how about we torture them and leave their bodies somewhere in a ditch? or perhaps we should burn their bodies and hang them on a bridge?

no, instead, I believe that they will be held until the end of hostilities, until they face a military tribunal, or until their own countries are willing to take custody of them.

or perhaps they deserve a trial of their peers? how is that going to happen Sherlock? please, do tell!

they are international terrorists and war criminals of the worst kind. all of your fantasies about them being innocent farmers in the wrong place at the wrong time are complete and utter nonsense.

what do you know about the GC's and the Laws of War?

get.a.clue.

ps: i guess it's good that you at least admit to having no clue to begin with!

If the military had concrete evidence on all of them in gitmo they could try and sentence them in tribunals or the court correctly.


They did that for 10.

The only proof they have on the majority of those in gitmo, is that they get on their knees on little rugs every day .

Put you cant admit that now. These men will probely die in there to "Protect" our ability to detain people in this manner. Because if we let a bunch out, and their innocence was possibly proven or even if their was a resonable doubt on their guilt, it would damage the power taken by this president.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

In general I think Gitmo is one of the most troubling, most un-American by-products of the "War on Terror." It amazes me there isn't more hue and cry caused by the fact that we have held some of these people for more than 4 years without trying or even charging them.

That said, a close friend of mine spent 6 months there, several months ago, as an interrogator of detainees. Her superiors told her it was fine to discuss what she experienced. It sounds like, although there have been occasional instances of maltreatment, in general the detainees are treated very humanely, and in general the interrogation consists of getting to know the detainees and just talking with them socially over days and weeks.

Interestingly, toward the end of her work there, one of the detainees told my friend, "you should never let anyone here free." He felt they were threats to the US, and had become more dangerous since they were in detention.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It is the exceptions that make the news.

There will always be a few bad apples in the barrell.

However, the majority try to do their jobs properly.

It is the muckrakers that will shine the light on the bad apples; making it much more difficult for the work to be done.

Yes, the muckrakers serve a purpose; however, throwing the baby out with the bathwater does not help.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: DonVito
In general I think Gitmo is one of the most troubling, most un-American by-products of the "War on Terror." It amazes me there isn't more hue and cry caused by the fact that we have held some of these people for more than 4 years without trying or even charging them.

That said, a close friend of mine spent 6 months there, several months ago, as an interrogator of detainees. Her superiors told her it was fine to discuss what she experienced. It sounds like, although there have been occasional instances of maltreatment, in general the detainees are treated very humanely, and in general the interrogation consists of getting to know the detainees and just talking with them socially over days and weeks.

Interestingly, toward the end of her work there, one of the detainees told my friend, "you should never let anyone here free." He felt they were threats to the US, and had become more dangerous since they were in detention.

Obviously 6 months is just a short time ago. The scandals of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo has forced the authorities the clean up their act years ago.

Eric Saar who was a former interrogator said in his book that terrorists in Gitmo only made a tiny proportion of the 600+ people held.

The vast majority of the people held in Gitmo weren't even captured by Americans. They were handed in by the locals for big cash bounties - so there was indiscriminate snatching off the streets. Some were prepubescent children who subsequently got imprisoned in Camp Iguana.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DonVito
In general I think Gitmo is one of the most troubling, most un-American by-products of the "War on Terror." It amazes me there isn't more hue and cry caused by the fact that we have held some of these people for more than 4 years without trying or even charging them.

That said, a close friend of mine spent 6 months there, several months ago, as an interrogator of detainees. Her superiors told her it was fine to discuss what she experienced. It sounds like, although there have been occasional instances of maltreatment, in general the detainees are treated very humanely, and in general the interrogation consists of getting to know the detainees and just talking with them socially over days and weeks.

Interestingly, toward the end of her work there, one of the detainees told my friend, "you should never let anyone here free." He felt they were threats to the US, and had become more dangerous since they were in detention.

DV: I have a legal question for you. I seem to recall in world war II that when armed partisans (as well as un-unimformed soldiers acting as spies/infiltrators) were captured on the battlefield (by any side), they were often given brief military trials then shot/hung. And this was in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Has this changed any to today?

 

[Zebo]

Here is another betral of our ideals by the police state it's a slippery slope.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/mercurynews...ornia/northern_california/14837174.htm

Charges have not yet been filed... investigators in the case have reportedly used a variety of coercive methods, including threatening the soldiers with the death penalty, interrogating them for upward of eight hours without water or toilet breaks, and keeping them shackled at the hands, waist and ankles.

SAN DIEGO - Pentagon investigators threatened the death penalty and used other coercive techniques to obtain statements from some of the seven Marines and a Navy corpsman jailed for the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian, two defense lawyers say.

Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Marine Pfc. John Jodka, 20, said Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials spoke to her client three times after he was taken into custody May 12. Jodka was questioned for up to eight hours at a time and was not offered water or toilet breaks, Siegel said.

"They used some really heavy-handed tactics to extract the information," Siegel said, adding that her client was not read his rights prior to questioning - a fundamental right to which all accused troops are entitled - and was threatened with the death penalty.

Jeremiah Sullivan III, the attorney representing the unidentified Navy medic, said his client was treated similarly.

Marine Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Camp Pendleton, where the troops are being held. Officials there did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Gary D. Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge advocate who teaches law of war at Georgetown University Law Center, said investigators were within their rights to threaten a suspect with the death penalty since it is the maximum sentence for premeditated murder.

If statements are to be used in a trial, a military judge must first decide that they were given voluntarily, Solis said. If the defense can argue this was not the case then the statements could be ruled inadmissible.

"To be questioned for eight hours does not necessarily make it an inadmissible statement," Solis said. "But you have to look at the circumstances that surrounded those eight hours."

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito
In general I think Gitmo is one of the most troubling, most un-American by-products of the "War on Terror." It amazes me there isn't more hue and cry caused by the fact that we have held some of these people for more than 4 years without trying or even charging them.

That said, a close friend of mine spent 6 months there, several months ago, as an interrogator of detainees. Her superiors told her it was fine to discuss what she experienced. It sounds like, although there have been occasional instances of maltreatment, in general the detainees are treated very humanely, and in general the interrogation consists of getting to know the detainees and just talking with them socially over days and weeks.

Interestingly, toward the end of her work there, one of the detainees told my friend, "you should never let anyone here free." He felt they were threats to the US, and had become more dangerous since they were in detention.

I thought about 18 JAG's resigned because of cooersive illegal conditions they were kept under?

Anyway I completly agree. You can't let them go. Should have shot them if posed a threat right then and there. Or try them soon after then execute them. You hold someone for four years w/o lawyer/charge/family they are going to get medieval on society upon release plus all those new tools they learned in terrorist finishing school, GITMO - they will be very "effective"

 

[palehorse]

do those of you seeking a "trial" for the detainees at Gitmo believe that they should be given the rights laid forth in our Constitution? They are non-US persons who were picked up on the battlefields as war criminals and terrorists. Since when do such detainees assume the rights of American citizens?

I suggest that ALL of you read up on the Laws of War before you attempt to debate this further. Very few of you have a clue as to how those laws work and the legal "rights" of said detainees.

GL!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
do those of you seeking a "trial" for the detainees at Gitmo believe that they should be given the rights laid forth in our Constitution? They are non-US persons who were picked up on the battlefields as war criminals and terrorists. Since when do such detainees assume the rights of American citizens?

I suggest that ALL of you read up on the Laws of War before you attempt to debate this further. Very few of you have a clue as to how those laws work and the legal "rights" of said detainees.

GL!

capt underoos, you always are good for a laugh. We treat them correctly because we want our soldiers or 'enemy combatants' to be treated correctly when they are caught. And yes, they deserve a trial, nazi war criminals got trials, I doubt anyone held at gitmo can hold a candle to those folks.
But then again, you know everything about every aspect of every branch. I bow to your 'know-it-allness'
what a maroon.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
do those of you seeking a "trial" for the detainees at Gitmo believe that they should be given the rights laid forth in our Constitution? They are non-US persons who were picked up on the battlefields as war criminals and terrorists. Since when do such detainees assume the rights of American citizens?

I suggest that ALL of you read up on the Laws of War before you attempt to debate this further. Very few of you have a clue as to how those laws work and the legal "rights" of said detainees.

GL!

<ahem>

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P99_25054

Prosecution: While

· POWs cannot be tried or punished simply for their participation in the armed conflict, they may be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and for common crimes under the laws of the detaining power or international law. POWs are entitled to substantial legal protections during the trial: POWs have the right to be tried before the same courts and facing the same procedures that the detaining power's military personnel would face, offering "the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality." In the case of Afghanistan POWs, that would mean trial before U.S. court martial or U.S. civilian courts. POWs are entitled to competent counsel to represent them at the trial, and must be informed of the charges against them. POWs are also entitled to have an appeal of their conviction and sentence.

POW status provides protection only for the act of taking up arms against opposing military forces, and if that is all a POW has done, then repatriation at the end of the conflict would be required. But as Article 82 of Third Geneva explains, POW status does not protect detainees from criminal offenses that are applicable to the detaining powers' soldiers as well. That is, if appropriate evidence can be collected, the United States would be perfectly entitled to charge the Guantanamo detainees with war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other violations of U.S. criminal law, whether or not they have POW status. As Article 115 of the Third Geneva Convention explains, POWs detained in connection with criminal prosecutions are entitled to be repatriated only "if the Detaining Power [that is, the United States] consents."

Nonprivileged or unlawful combatants may be charged with criminal offenses arising out of their participation in the armed conflict.armed activity, because they are not entitled to the immunity that is often called the "combatant's privilege." Like POWs, they can also be charged with committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and common crimes. or other serious offenses. While nonprivileged combatants are not entitled to the extensive trial rights of POWs under the Third Geneva Convention, they are entitled to a "fair and regular trial" and the trial protections provided by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is a fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions that all detainees are entitled to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Nonprivileged combatants are entitled to trial before a "properly constituted, non-political military court," to be informed of the charges against them, to present their defense and call witnesses, to be assisted by qualified counsel of their own choice, to have an interpreter, and to mount an appeal against the conviction and sentence. As an exceptional measure, trials may be held in camera if the security of the state so requires.

1 International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: 1958), p. 51 (emphasis in original). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, charged with prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the recent conflicts in the Balkans, has explicitly affirmed this principle in a 1998 judgment, stating that "there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied." Celebici Judgment, para. 271 (1998).

2 Celebici judgment, para 271.

3 Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2. No. 2 (1987), pp. 425-26.

4 U.S. military Judge Advocate General Operational Law Handbook (2000). Eds. M. Lacey & B. Bill. International Law and Operational Law Department, Judge Advocate General's School, Charlottesville,
Ch 5, p. 7.

 

[jimkyser]

Oh, come on conjur, just because that is the law that is written doesn't mean it's really the law. Alberto Gonzales, and John Ashcroft before him, have already made several legal decisions showing that the Geneva Conventions and even the Constitution of the United States have no bearing on the War on Terra.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize

DV: I have a legal question for you. I seem to recall in world war II that when armed partisans (as well as un-unimformed soldiers acting as spies/infiltrators) were captured on the battlefield (by any side), they were often given brief military trials then shot/hung. And this was in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Has this changed any to today?

The protections of the Geneva Conventions are generally held only to apply to uniformed combatants. Non-uniformed combatants can be tried in compliance with the laws of the nation exercising jurisdiction over them, for espionage, murder, etc. I haven't heard of the WWII practice you describe, and I'd be a bit surprised if Americans did this, but if they did it wouldn't, strictly speaking, violate the GC.

The point to which I think you're alluding is well-taken: the detainees at Gitmo are not, strictly speaking, entitled to the protections of the GC, nor are they necessarily entitled to the protections afforded under the US Constitution. That said, it seems to me that that is a fairly weak defense for the practice of detaining them indefinitely without charging them or allowing them access to counsel. I doubt this is what the Framers had in mind . . .

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize

DV: I have a legal question for you. I seem to recall in world war II that when armed partisans (as well as un-unimformed soldiers acting as spies/infiltrators) were captured on the battlefield (by any side), they were often given brief military trials then shot/hung. And this was in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Has this changed any to today?

The protections of the Geneva Conventions are generally held only to apply to uniformed combatants. Non-uniformed combatants can be tried in compliance with the laws of the nation exercising jurisdiction over them, for espionage, murder, etc. I haven't heard of the WWII practice you describe, and I'd be a bit surprised if Americans did this, but if they did it wouldn't, strictly speaking, violate the GC.

The point to which I think you're alluding is well-taken: the detainees at Gitmo are not, strictly speaking, entitled to the protections of the GC, nor are they necessarily entitled to the protections afforded under the US Constitution. That said, it seems to me that that is a fairly weak defense for the practice of detaining them indefinitely without charging them or allowing them access to counsel. I doubt this is what the Framers had in mind . . .

Here's an example from WWII that comes to mind:
Link

It seems to me that if they can be legally executed on the battlefield, what then gives them additional rights when the milliatary chooses not to execute them. How is execution on the battlefield legal, but indefinite imprisonment is not?

IMHO an addendum is needed to the geneva convention to better define the "enemy combatant".

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DonVito
In general I think Gitmo is one of the most troubling, most un-American by-products of the "War on Terror." It amazes me there isn't more hue and cry caused by the fact that we have held some of these people for more than 4 years without trying or even charging them.

That said, a close friend of mine spent 6 months there, several months ago, as an interrogator of detainees. Her superiors told her it was fine to discuss what she experienced. It sounds like, although there have been occasional instances of maltreatment, in general the detainees are treated very humanely, and in general the interrogation consists of getting to know the detainees and just talking with them socially over days and weeks.

Interestingly, toward the end of her work there, one of the detainees told my friend, "you should never let anyone here free." He felt they were threats to the US, and had become more dangerous since they were in detention.

thank you for the insight DonVito.

what do you think we should do or where do you think we should keep these people that even one of the detainees admits are dangerous.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's an example from WWII that comes to mind:
Link

It seems to me that if they can be legally executed on the battlefield, what then gives them additional rights when the milliatary chooses not to execute them. How is execution on the battlefield legal, but indefinite imprisonment is not?

IMHO an addendum is needed to the geneva convention to better define the "enemy combatant".

I think it would have been "legal" to execute them assuming they had been given a fair trial. Not because they were not wearing a uniform but because they were effectivly "spying" on the allied forces. The penalty for espionage was death in most countries at that time
I might be wrong but I think the fact that they were not wearing a uniform would have meant that it would have been a civilan trial (at least officially). However, on the battlefield even civilian law on occupied territory is usually upheld by the military so the trial would still have been handled by the military.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

thank you for the insight DonVito.

what do you think we should do or where do you think we should keep these people that even one of the detainees admits are dangerous.

I think we should be trying them, under a process in substantial compliance with the US Constitution, and punishing them accordingly. At this point they are essentially kidnapping victims as far as I'm concerned.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: moshquerade

thank you for the insight DonVito.

what do you think we should do or where do you think we should keep these people that even one of the detainees admits are dangerous.

I think we should be trying them, under a process in substantial compliance with the US Constitution, and punishing them accordingly. At this point they are essentially kidnapping victims as far as I'm concerned.

Why aren't we trying them?

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: moshquerade

thank you for the insight DonVito.

what do you think we should do or where do you think we should keep these people that even one of the detainees admits are dangerous.

I think we should be trying them, under a process in substantial compliance with the US Constitution, and punishing them accordingly. At this point they are essentially kidnapping victims as far as I'm concerned.

Why aren't we trying them?

It takes too much effort.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: moshquerade

thank you for the insight DonVito.

what do you think we should do or where do you think we should keep these people that even one of the detainees admits are dangerous.

I think we should be trying them, under a process in substantial compliance with the US Constitution, and punishing them accordingly. At this point they are essentially kidnapping victims as far as I'm concerned.

Why aren't we trying them?

Because this administration knows that 80-90% of them are not terrorists that were fighting the US in Afghanistan.

As I've said before, the Northern Alliance was being paid for each person turned over to the US and they took anyone that even looked Arab that wasn't part of their group and handed them over.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Why aren't we trying them?

My feeling is that the powers that be prefer to keep them indefinitely as potential sources of intel. Believe it or not, we still get what we regard as useful info from them, in spite of the fact that they have been there for years, because we return to them once we identify new investigative subjects outside the camp and ask them what they know about the people.

My own opinion is that the military tribunals we've set up down there are a kangaroo court, hence the reason that several JAGs there have left and/or retired in disgust.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Why aren't we trying them?

My feeling is that the powers that be prefer to keep them indefinitely as potential sources of intel. Believe it or not, we still get what we regard as useful info from them, in spite of the fact that they have been there for years, because we return to them once we identify new investigative subjects outside the camp and ask them what they know about the people.

My own opinion is that the military tribunals we've set up down there are a kangaroo court, hence the reason that several JAGs there have left and/or retired in disgust.

I believe you are correct. I have heard this same explanation before.

Thanks again for the information.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: DonVito hence the reason that several JAGs there have left and/or retired in disgust.

That some of these guys would give up their careers in protest of the denial of basic rights to even terrorist suspects makes me proud we have JAGs like that in the service. :thumbsup:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: palehorse74
do those of you seeking a "trial" for the detainees at Gitmo believe that they should be given the rights laid forth in our Constitution? They are non-US persons who were picked up on the battlefields as war criminals and terrorists. Since when do such detainees assume the rights of American citizens?

I suggest that ALL of you read up on the Laws of War before you attempt to debate this further. Very few of you have a clue as to how those laws work and the legal "rights" of said detainees.

GL!

capt underoos, you always are good for a laugh. We treat them correctly because we want our soldiers or 'enemy combatants' to be treated correctly when they are caught. And yes, they deserve a trial, nazi war criminals got trials, I doubt anyone held at gitmo can hold a candle to those folks.
But then again, you know everything about every aspect of every branch. I bow to your 'know-it-allness'
what a maroon.

answer one question: were the nazi criminals, of old, members of an organized and recognized army who wore uniforms and bore weapons openly?

that's your first clue.. like i said, GL!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74
do those of you seeking a "trial" for the detainees at Gitmo believe that they should be given the rights laid forth in our Constitution? They are non-US persons who were picked up on the battlefields as war criminals and terrorists. Since when do such detainees assume the rights of American citizens?

I suggest that ALL of you read up on the Laws of War before you attempt to debate this further. Very few of you have a clue as to how those laws work and the legal "rights" of said detainees.

GL!

<ahem>

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P99_25054

Prosecution: While

· POWs cannot be tried or punished simply for their participation in the armed conflict, they may be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and for common crimes under the laws of the detaining power or international law. POWs are entitled to substantial legal protections during the trial: POWs have the right to be tried before the same courts and facing the same procedures that the detaining power's military personnel would face, offering "the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality." In the case of Afghanistan POWs, that would mean trial before U.S. court martial or U.S. civilian courts. POWs are entitled to competent counsel to represent them at the trial, and must be informed of the charges against them. POWs are also entitled to have an appeal of their conviction and sentence.

POW status provides protection only for the act of taking up arms against opposing military forces, and if that is all a POW has done, then repatriation at the end of the conflict would be required. But as Article 82 of Third Geneva explains, POW status does not protect detainees from criminal offenses that are applicable to the detaining powers' soldiers as well. That is, if appropriate evidence can be collected, the United States would be perfectly entitled to charge the Guantanamo detainees with war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other violations of U.S. criminal law, whether or not they have POW status. As Article 115 of the Third Geneva Convention explains, POWs detained in connection with criminal prosecutions are entitled to be repatriated only "if the Detaining Power [that is, the United States] consents."

Nonprivileged or unlawful combatants may be charged with criminal offenses arising out of their participation in the armed conflict.armed activity, because they are not entitled to the immunity that is often called the "combatant's privilege." Like POWs, they can also be charged with committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and common crimes. or other serious offenses. While nonprivileged combatants are not entitled to the extensive trial rights of POWs under the Third Geneva Convention, they are entitled to a "fair and regular trial" and the trial protections provided by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is a fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions that all detainees are entitled to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Nonprivileged combatants are entitled to trial before a "properly constituted, non-political military court," to be informed of the charges against them, to present their defense and call witnesses, to be assisted by qualified counsel of their own choice, to have an interpreter, and to mount an appeal against the conviction and sentence. As an exceptional measure, trials may be held in camera if the security of the state so requires.

1 International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: 1958), p. 51 (emphasis in original). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, charged with prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the recent conflicts in the Balkans, has explicitly affirmed this principle in a 1998 judgment, stating that "there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied." Celebici Judgment, para. 271 (1998).

2 Celebici judgment, para 271.

3 Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2. No. 2 (1987), pp. 425-26.

4 U.S. military Judge Advocate General Operational Law Handbook (2000). Eds. M. Lacey & B. Bill. International Law and Operational Law Department, Judge Advocate General's School, Charlottesville,
Ch 5, p. 7.

<ahem>, the detainees at Gitmo are not "POW's".

that's the second free clue of the evening.