Road to Guantanamo

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
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 . . .

at least you're paying attention.. koodo's!

As to the "Framer's," they never laid out, or even considered, "inaliable rights" for non-US persons.

There is no ryhme or reason to grant foreign enemies the rights and privileges granted to US persons under the Constitution. period.

that's clue #3.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: 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.
100% wrong.

again, please Google the "Law of War".

clue #4.

ps: sorry for multiple posts, but I have alot of things to say on this issue.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
IMO people make way too much of a big deal about gitmo.

The dopes in Europe and in the US spend more time whining about a few (maybe?) innocents from Afghanistan sitting around in reasonably decent settings but you never hear any condemnation from them for the beheadings and other atrocities committed by insurgents every fking day.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?
Do you not belive in the principles of our Constitution?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.
Wow, and you want to be in HUMINT in our military? No wonder bin Laden will never be found. Do you really not know how to read?

Pretty freakin' sad.

Here, I'll copy it down AGAIN:

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.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?
Do you not belive in the principles of our Constitution?
I believe in every single one of them; that said, there is NO reason that our Consititution should grant rights of non-US persons! If that is your entire plan for those at Gitmo, then I hope you know that it will never happen.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DonVito

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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?

Because that document defines what separates us from them. You'll note I didn't say we were required to give them Constitutional protections, and that I said "substantial" compliance with the Constitution.

The reality, IMO, is that there was a legitimate argument for holding these people without trial longer than the speedy-trial period we could justify as to an American citizen, for reasons of national security. At this point, though, we've held them for more than four years.

As for the trials themselves, what do you propose? I feel strongly that if we deny them some reasonable facsimile of procedural due process, we are lowering ourselves to no good end. Do we want to conduct unfair kangaroo-court trials in the name of the United States? At that point Gitmo really would be a Gulag.

My own feeling is that we can permissibly truncate full Constitutional protections in these cases, but only to a point. Some of the people at Gitmo are truly dangerous, some less so, but ultimately we can't hold them forever. If they are true terrorists, try, convict, and punish them. If they're just Afghani fighters who took up arms against the US as an invading force, it seems to me they are essentially EPWs and should be treated accordingly (since Afghanistan had such a long tradition of non-uniformed guerilla warfare, heavily subsidized in the past by the US, I think they are arguably more akin to EPWs than militiamen).

A friend of mine, an AF JAG major, is now working as a Gitmo prosecutor - I'll have to check in with him one of these days.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?
Do you not belive in the principles of our Constitution?
I believe in every single one of them...
You are denying the very foundation of our Constitution; the beleif that we all are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?
Do you not belive in the principles of our Constitution?
I believe in every single one of them...
You are denying the very foundation of our Constitution; the beleif that we all are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
yes, we are. as in, we the citizens of the U.S.

our constitution has no bearing on enemy fighters captured on the fields of battle. if you believe that it does, then you're dellusional.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74

our constitution has no bearing on enemy fighters captured on the fields of battle. if you believe that it does, then you're dellusional.

Then I say again, what do you propose we do with the detainees?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: palehorse74

our constitution has no bearing on enemy fighters captured on the fields of battle. if you believe that it does, then you're dellusional.

Then I say again, what do you propose we do with the detainees?
just what we ARE doing. AFAIC, they earned a life sentence when they chose to take up arms against us.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74

just what we ARE doing. AFAIC, they earned a life sentence when they chose to take up arms against us.

Are you serious? The majority of the men at Gitmo are routine Taliban militiamen who were, from their perspective, defending their country against an invading force.
 

Reckoner

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
10,851
1
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?
Do you not belive in the principles of our Constitution?
I believe in every single one of them...
You are denying the very foundation of our Constitution; the beleif that we all are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
yes, we are. as in, we the citizens of the U.S.

our constitution has no bearing on enemy fighters captured on the fields of battle. if you believe that it does, then you're dellusional.


So you think that God gave Americans certain unalienable rights, but not the rest of the world? :disgust:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: palehorse74

just what we ARE doing. AFAIC, they earned a life sentence when they chose to take up arms against us.

Are you serious? The majority of the men at Gitmo are routine Taliban militiamen who were, from their perspective, defending their country against an invading force.
and you know this how? do you have a list of those detained? have you been there? or do you know some of the prisoners personally?

"militiamen"?!?!! next I bet you'll say that Osama is one swell dude who just got a tough break and an undeserved bad rep... we should just leave the poor guy alone, right? bah!

For the slowww folks out there:
Taliban = bad people. Taliban = tried to kill me quite a few times. Taliban = scumsucking violent fundamentalist kooks. Taliban = Religious Whackos who left night letters in villages that I patrolled which contained threats against the village teachers, the village elders, their wives, and even their children if they were seen speaking to Americans or ANA forces. Therefore, Taliban = life sentence.

fvck em.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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 on earth should they be given a trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution?!?
Do you not belive in the principles of our Constitution?
I believe in every single one of them...
You are denying the very foundation of our Constitution; the beleif that we all are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
yes, we are. as in, we the citizens of the U.S.

our constitution has no bearing on enemy fighters captured on the fields of battle. if you believe that it does, then you're dellusional.


So you think that God gave Americans certain unalienable rights, but not the rest of the world? :disgust:

no. I believe that it was out forefathers who had the insight to grant US citizens those inaliable rights. But never in a million years did they intend those rights to be extended to sworn enemies of our entire nation.

no fvcking way.

one of these days your heart may stop bleeding and you may finally realize whose side you're on, and which side has the "good guys." that obviously hasn't happened yet.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Our founders did not "grant US citizens those inaliable rights." Rather, as they plainly stated, they acknowledged the unalienable rights of all men as a self-evident truth; a truth which continue to blatantly deny.
 

Reckoner

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
10,851
1
81
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Our founders did not "grant US citizens those inaliable rights." Rather, as they plainly stated, they acknowledged the unalienable rights of all men as a self-evident truth; a truth which continue to blatantly deny.

Exactly. Palehorse, I think you're taking this completely out of context.
 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
one of these days your heart may stop bleeding and you may finally realize whose side you're on, and which side has the "good guys." that obviously hasn't happened yet.

It's pretty easy to tell who the good guys and the bad guys are because the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats. Right?

Life is a cheap Western! Yeeeefsckinghaw!

I almost admire your childlike simplicity and bipolar view of the world... it would certainly
make life MUCH easier by removing the need for critical and analytical thought and self-examination.

Almost.

 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
The US government should not be running concentration camps outside the limits of US law.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DonVito
Are you serious? The majority of the men at Gitmo are routine Taliban militiamen who were, from their perspective, defending their country against an invading force.
and you know this how? do you have a list of those detained? have you been there? or do you know some of the prisoners personally?

"militiamen"?!?!! next I bet you'll say that Osama is one swell dude who just got a tough break and an undeserved bad rep... we should just leave the poor guy alone, right? bah!

For the slowww folks out there:
Taliban = bad people. Taliban = tried to kill me quite a few times. Taliban = scumsucking violent fundamentalist kooks. Taliban = Religious Whackos who left night letters in villages that I patrolled which contained threats against the village teachers, the village elders, their wives, and even their children if they were seen speaking to Americans or ANA forces. Therefore, Taliban = life sentence.

fvck em.
Do you not realize that the US doesn't consider the Taliban as a terrorist organizations?
Do you not know that the Northern Alliance was turning over anyone that even looked Arab to the US in return for ca$h?
Do you not know that most of the Islamists in Afghanistan are leftovers from the fight against the Russians and had NO part of the 9/11 attacks?
Do you not know that bin Laden and Zawahiri are a radical minority of Islamists in that they want to attack the US directly while the rest are just interested in setting up Islamic states in their own lands?


Gee, and you say you're an expert in this area and you know NONE of this?


Go back to your Counterstrike.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
and you know this how? do you have a list of those detained? have you been there? or do you know some of the prisoners personally?

"militiamen"?!?!! next I bet you'll say that Osama is one swell dude who just got a tough break and an undeserved bad rep... we should just leave the poor guy alone, right? bah!

For the slowww folks out there:
Taliban = bad people. Taliban = tried to kill me quite a few times. Taliban = scumsucking violent fundamentalist kooks. Taliban = Religious Whackos who left night letters in villages that I patrolled which contained threats against the village teachers, the village elders, their wives, and even their children if they were seen speaking to Americans or ANA forces. Therefore, Taliban = life sentence.

fvck em.

No, but as I said, a close friend of mine spent six months there interrogating detainees.

I take it you don't know much about the history of the Taliban - these are the same people we directly funded and provided weapons to for years during the Reagan and first Bush administrations. We may not love them, but they were, at one time, our ally. Even if they are sworn enemies of the United States, it's clearly un-American to lock them up indefinitely - we didn't do anything like that to the Nazis, and the majority of the people at Gitmo are more akin to German foot soldiers than to Hitler, Himmler, or Mengele.

Some of your statements make it increasingly difficult to believe you have the military training and experience you claim to.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,452
136
I didn't realize the taliban had such a good internet connection as to challenge you to a cstrike match. were they l337?