Terrorist convicted - the left cries

[Chucara]

However it's not like the people being held down there are innocent little angels that were swept up out of their beds by a dictatorship in the middle of the night. Despite what many on the left would tell you.

Indeed. I mean, if the police arrest someone, they must not be angels either. So let's just lock all of them up too without trial.

As for the ones that aren't American citizens, they can rot in there. They are prisoners of war until the war is over.

The "hiding behind the Geneva convention" argument is the dumbest excuse for the Guantanamo-situation ever. First of all, when is "the war" over? When all the "terrorists" are dead? How convenient that the US decides who the terrorists are then.

Second of all, before hiding behind international conventions, try actually following them. How long did it take before allowing the Red Cross to access the detainees? And what is currently being done after the Red Cross has reported the conditions as inhumane? Not enough, that's for sure.

I can't even begin to understand the "they're not American" excuse. So it's ok for the US army to travel to another country, "arrest" random people, and detain them as POWs? After all, they're not American. That just doesn't make sense.

The whole enemy combatant/Geneva convention babble only works in traditional warfare between two nation states / alliances. That was how the original convention was intended. One of the major requirements for having POWs is that the two sides are easily determinable, typically through similar clothing/uniforms. For Guerrilla warfare, this is modified to visibly wearing weapons during military operations.
Anyone not doing so, are unlawful combatants, and loose the privileges of POWs. They still retain the rights of civilians. Meaning that to retain them, they would need a fair trial. Isn't there a hole in the logic somewhere here?

Even if we should assume that the POW argument made sense, the Geneva convention actually requires that the POWs are quartered under the same conditions as the US troops. Please just try to tell me that is the case..

It's things like this that's making the US seem more like an undeveloped country in terms of politics. (This, and not allowing neutral observers to monitor the last presidential elections)

You can argue "they deserve it" all you want, and for the majority of detainees, I might agree with you. But the "everything is according to law" argument won't pass.

[Hoopy Frood]

I think the fact that a huge chunk of the people that vote for Democrats are upset that this scumbag was convicted is a very specific issue. These are the same people that have never wanted us to succeed in Iraq and only because it would be a victory for Bush in their eyes. How crazed do you have to be to actually root for our enemies to win or avoid conviction just because you hate the sitting President so much? That's freakin nuts.

Huge chunk? Really. A few Moonbats on a liberal news site/aggregate blog think it's bad and that is a full representation. How do you know some of the people supporting the verdict aren't liberals? I don't see a little tag that defines the posters as "right-winger" or "left-winger," do you?

You want to know my opinions on the "right" vs. the "left." I find on the whole, the "left" tend to disagree amongst themselves much more than the right. In fact, most "lefties" don't really even consider themselves "left," but the "right" will label anyone not part of their groupthink as a "lefty." For example, most "right-wingers" would label me a "lefty," but I really don't think the Democrats would like me anymore than I like them. Heck, people like Night Owl would be labled a "lefty" by modern day "right-wingers," and I would never consider him anywhere close to a bleeding-heart type (he's more along the lines of an old school Teddy Roosevelt type). My experience in following various politically biased media sources is that those in the "right-wing" will actively band together to form a cohesive unwavering point-of-view. (Rush Limbaugh listeners, anyone?) The "left-winger" have little disparate communities by comparison. It's one of the main reasons left-wing radio doesn't work.

Heck, look at the WTO protests. You had about 10 agendas protesting against the WTO, including some "right-wingers" of the Pat Buchanan variety (i.e. very pro-labor). Although I disagree with Pat Buchanan in just about every way politically, I give the guy a lot of credit for being his own person. He makes no secret of what he believes in and will take anyone on that disagrees.

[Celest]

Even the provision under the geneva convention concerning enemy combatants lays out basic rights for illegal combatants. There isnt some giant void and, IIRC, it specificly states that an Illegal combatant must be tried under the law of the land in which they commited the offenses. So techically, alot of them should be tried under old Afghan/Iraq law.

[Brugdor]

Even the provision under the geneva convention concerning enemy combatants lays out basic rights for illegal combatants. There isnt some giant void and, IIRC, it specificly states that an Illegal combatant must be tried under the law of the land in which they commited the offenses. So techically, alot of them should be tried under old Afghan/Iraq law.

Which would be great if these particular enemy fit under the Geneva Convention rules...which they don't. So they can rot.

[Celest]

Erm, Illegal combatants is covered under Geneva.


The only exception that Geneva makes for 'Unlawful Combatants' is that they dont receive the same rights as a POW(as per the Third Geneva convention) but they still receive the basic rights to 'Humane treatment and cannot be deprived of the right to a fair and regular trial'(as per the 4th convention). Also, if they are an unlawful combatant(thus not a POW), they are considered a civilian and are then afforded the protections and rights granted to civilians under Geneva.(as stated under the Fourth convention, which lays out what qualifies for PoW status and what doesnt).

So they fall very firmly into Geneva. Seriously, i recommend you take the time to read through em all.. they are an eye opener as to why people across the world are so pissed off that we have Gitmo up and running.

[Brugdor]

Nope sorry but they aren't.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2846

I'll just cut and paste from someone that explains it far better than I can.

The Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War goes well beyond the convention against torture to impose a blanket prohibition on any sort of pressure during questioning. In fact, the Geneva Convention imposes such severe limitations on interrogators that it would outlaw routine investigative procedures used every day by Australian police.

But that point is really academic, because the text of the conventions makes them inapplicable to the conflict with al-Qaeda. Human rights advocacy groups may not like it, but the letter of international law is not always consistent with their political agendas.

These are not simply hypothetical dilemmas that are the stuff of law school classrooms or philosophy seminars. We live in a time when these are real-world questions with real-world consequences. A case in point: last July, when the Chicago Tribune reported that “recent information from Guantanamo has derailed plans for attacks during the Athens Olympics next month and possibly forestalled at least a dozen attacks elsewhere”.

The laws of war essentially propose a contract to combatants: if you observe these rules of civilised warfare, then you will be treated in a civilised manner. The conditional nature of legitimate combatant status is reflected in the text of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. A common article two of those conventions states that parties to the treaty are under no legal obligation to apply their terms to non-parties who do not themselves abide by the law of armed conflict.

The men detained at Guantanamo were captured on the battlefield while fighting for organisations that systematically violated the most basic tenets of the law of war. Captured al-Qaeda fighters were drawn from the ranks of an organisation that sees the deliberate destruction of women, children and the elderly as a legitimate tactic. From flying hijacked airliners into office buildings to bombing commuter trains in Madrid, Osama bin Laden’s minions have committed every war crime on the books.

The Taliban were also serial transgressors against the law of war. At a press conference in early 2002, the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, explained why Washington declined to recognise Taliban fighters as legal combatants:

The Taliban did not wear distinctive signs, insignias, symbols or uniforms ... To the contrary, far from seeking to distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan, they sought to blend in with civilian non-combatants, hiding in mosques and populated areas. They [were] not organised in military units, as such, with identifiable chains of command; indeed, al-Qaeda forces made up portions of their forces.

The Guantanamo Bay detainees are illegal combatants whose actions placed them beyond the pale of international law. To afford them the privileges and protections of the Geneva Conventions, despite their crimes, would provide reward where retribution is warranted.

[Celest]

Which, again, ignores the tenats of the conventions.

Here's the two articles in which is being used to justify the notion that 'the conventions doesnt apply(which ignores that even within these articles, protections are clearly laid out):

GC IV, Article 5:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Now, lets take a look at that last paragraph. Humane treatment, check, fair trial and regular trial as laid out by the convention, check. Rights and privlages SHALL be restored at the earliest date consistant with the security of the state or Occupying Power... and if they are in prison, they can no longer be considered a viable 'threat' to the security of the occupying power(the US)... The first provision is questionable as to if it's being handled.. the second provision hasnt been followed and the last provision DEFINATELY hasnt been followed.

So even if they dont get the full rights of PoW's, they are still afforded basic rights under the convetion and there isnt some 'magic void', like the administration is insisting there is, for these people to fall in to where all of their rights under the convetion are non-exsistant.

[Brugdor]

Which, again, ignores the tenats of the conventions.

Here's the two articles in which is being used to justify the notion that 'the conventions doesnt apply(which ignores that even within these articles, protections are clearly laid out):

GC IV, Article 5:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Now, lets take a look at that last paragraph. Humane treatment, check, fair trial and regular trial as laid out by the convention, check. Rights and privlages SHALL be restored at the earliest date consistant with the security of the state or Occupying Power... and if they are in prison, they can no longer be considered a viable 'threat' to the security of the occupying power(the US)... The first provision is questionable as to if it's being handled.. the second provision hasnt been followed and the last provision DEFINATELY hasnt been followed.

So even if they dont get the full rights of PoW's, they are still afforded basic rights under the convetion and there isnt some 'magic void', like the administration is insisting there is, for these people to fall in to where all of their rights under the convetion are non-exsistant.

Except that they keep referring to the person as a "protected person" as in someone who already falls under the convention rules. So again, it doesn't apply. When the terrorists start following the rules of war outlined in the convention then get back to me. Otherwise they rot.

[Celest]

Then show me the exception?

Afghanistan and Iraq are both Signatories of the Geneva conventions, thus their nationals fall under the 'protected persons claus'. So is Iran, as well as Syria and many other places that these 'unlawful combatants' come from.


So, if there is some exception that they specificly fall under.. where is it?


Just for the record, Im not arguing that they should be PoW's.. but that even without being PoW's, they have basic rights guaranteed by the conventions which they are being denied and that is why Gitmo is such a bad thing for the US on the international stage.

[Brugdor]

Then show me the exception?

Afghanistan and Iraq are both Signatories of the Geneva conventions, thus their nationals fall under the 'protected persons claus'. So is Iran, as well as Syria and many other places that these 'unlawful combatants' come from.


So, if there is some exception that they specificly fall under.. where is it?


Just for the record, Im not arguing that they should be PoW's.. but that even without being PoW's, they have basic rights guaranteed by the conventions which they are being denied and that is why Gitmo is such a bad thing for the US on the international stage.

And if we catch members of the Afghanistan or Iraq armies fighting against us, they fall under the convention rules. Unless of course they are breaking the rules of the convention themselves and then I think we have a legit argument to also ignore those rules in regards to them.  Terrorists do not have protection under the convention rules at all however. They are not considered the armed forces of a country, do not wear uniforms, specifically target civilians, and don't follow convention rules themselves in regards to POWs they capture. Unless of course beheading people on video tape falls under convention rules. I can't seem to find that section though.

[Celest]

Yes, they wouldnt be a PoW.


If we catch a civilian from Iraq or Afghanistan fighting against us that isnt a member of the armies, militias and other 'recognized' fighting groups, then they fall under citizens who are subject to the provisions laid out in the article that I posted which guarantees even basic rights, even if they are illegal combatants(the basic guarantees of humane treatement, fair and regular trial as laid out under geneva provisions and the guarantee of having their full protected status restored as soon as they are no longer a 'threat' to the state or occupying forces).

*edits to add a needed nt*

[Brugdor]

Yes, they wouldnt be a PoW.


If we catch a civilian from Iraq or Afghanistan fighting against us that isnt a member of the armies, militias and other 'recognized' fighting groups, then they fall under citizens who are subject to the provisions laid out in the article that I posted which guarantees even basic rights, even if they are illegal combatants(the basic guarantees of humane treatement, fair and regular trial as laid out under geneva provisions and the guarantee of having their full protected status restored as soon as they are no longer a 'threat' to the state or occupying forces).

*edits to add a needed nt*

Even if you believe they are covered under that article (which I don't) it says, "They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." which means it's basically up to our government to determine when their trial is. So they still rot.

Now, switching gears here as it doesn't appear either of us is going to budge on this subject. How do you justify holding our troops to standards and rules that our enemies aren't following and then granting our enemies protection under those same standards and rules? This whole argument is just another way for the the fringe left (happy now BC?) to keep "Bushitler's war" from being successful.

* Edit to add the Hitler part of Bush's name since I was quoting the fringe left.

[Hoopy Frood]

Now, switching gears here as it doesn't appear either of us is going to budge on this subject. How do you justify holding our troops to standards and rules that our enemies aren't following and then granting our enemies protection under those same standards and rules? This whole argument is just another way for the the fringe left (happy now BC?) to keep "Bushitler's war" from being successful.

It's called taking the high road. It's called standing for what you believe to be right. It's called not mud wrestling with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. It's called not giving the international stage anymore reason to view us as hypocrites. It's called not giving other people any legitimate incentive to treat our combatants the same way we treat the Gitmo detainees. Two wrongs don't make a right. Turn the other cheek. Yadda yadda yadda insert cliche here.

In the past, conservatives believed in governmental openness. They fully supported the Geneva Convention not because they had any real concern about treating enemy combatants well, but because they wanted to see their own soldiers afforded the same benefits. If there was any doubt, the erred on the side of giving more rights than the combatants might have been entitled to. Bush runs the most closed-off executive branch ever. He refuses to release any info on those held at Gitmo unless the law forces him to. His contempt for The International Court of Justice is expressed openly. Maybe if the neo-cons could actually give me a reason to believe they have the nation's best interests at heart, I would trust them, but from everything I've seen, they want little more than to remake the world in their little neocon image.

Too bad they never bothered actually studying the people they try to conquer.

[Brugdor]

It's called taking the high road

The high road hit a dead end shortly after 9/11.

In the past, conservatives believed in governmental openness. They fully supported the Geneva Convention not because they had any real concern about treating enemy combatants well, but because they wanted to see their own soldiers afforded the same benefits. If there was any doubt, the erred on the side of giving more rights than the combatants might have been entitled to. Bush runs the most closed-off executive branch ever. He refuses to release any info on those held at Gitmo unless the law forces him to. His contempt for The International Court of Justice is expressed openly. Maybe if the neo-cons could actually give me a reason to believe they have the nation's best interests at heart, I would trust them, but from everything I've seen, they want little more than to remake the world in their little neocon image.

Too bad they never bothered actually studying the people they try to conquer.

As I said, our own troops have to fear having their heads cut off on a terrorist propaganda video tape. The idea that we have to follow these rules while our enemies don't is just an excuse to undermine the war. That's all it is. You can hide behind the other arguments but that's what it boils down to.  You are basically sending a fighter into the ring with one hand tied behind his back and then complaining that he's not winning.

[Celest]

I justify it by the fact that we agreed that we would hold our troops to those standards.


To me, we have two choices:

1) Follow our agreements(including geneva which explicitly states at the begining of each convention that if only one side of a conflict is a signatory of the conventions, they are still responsable for following the provisions laid out by it). Ignoring it like as has been done only hurts us in the long run on the international stage.

2) Withdraw from the conventions and our international agreements and give up the privlages that we garner from being signatories and then do whatever we want to who we want.


Im sorry, but I come from a line of people who still beleive that if you give your word on something, then you follow through with it. It's the mindset that you are promoting that has so many people across the world so pissed off at our country.