Guantanamo Bay Detainees

[byron13]

This is a response to CynicAl's post on the MacArthur thread. Rather than junk it up with 911 issues when the thread was doing well on WWII issues, I decided to respond here. Thus, those that couldn't care less about this issue need not weed through it when what they really want to discuss is pogroms.

In digging around this afternoon, I came up with some interesting articles that I'm going to read tonight on the subject. Apparently, the issue of whether they are POW's or not has NOT been decided and therefore the applicability of the Geneva Convention has not been decided either.

I have a copy of a March 13, 2002, letter sent by the OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to someone - maybe the U.S. delegate/ambassodor to the OAS (he is referred to as "his excellency"). Anyway, it is a request that "the United States take the urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay determined by a competent tribunal."

It states earlier in the letter that only a "competent court or tribunal, as opposed to a political authority, must be charged with ensuring respect for the legal status and rights of persons falling under the authority and control of a state." Later, after acknowledging the facts under which the detainees were captured: "It is also well known that doubts exist as to the legal status of the detainees. This includes the question of whether and to what extent the Third Geneva Convention and/or other provisions of international humanitarian law apply to some or all of the detainees and what implications this may have for their international human rights protections. According to official statements from the United States government, its Executive Branch has most recently declined to extend prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention to the detainees, without submitting the issue for determination by a competent tribunal or otherwise ascertaining the rights and protections to which the detainees are entitled under US domestic or international law."

So apparently the OAS doesn't think the U.S. has complied with its obligations in determining whether or not the detainees are POW's or not. It is paying particular attention to the rights of religious freedom and worship; equality before the law; freedom of investigation, opinion, expression, and dissemination; fair trial; protection from arbitrary arrest; and due process of law - all of which are specifically covered in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

As an additional detail to impress your date at the dinner table: note the terms "human rights" and "humanitarian law" in the long paragraph quoted above. To quote from the letter: "It is well-recognized that international human rights law applies at all times, in peacetime and in situations of armed conflict. In contrast, international humanitarian law generally does not apply in peacetime and its principal purpose is to place restraints on the conduct of warfare in order to limit or contain the damaging effects of hostilities and to protect the victims of armed conflict, including civilians and combatants who have laid down their arms or have been placed hors de combat." So apparently, international human rights is a minimum standard that (in a dream world) apply at all times; humanitarian rights, by contrast and as apparently set forth in the Geneva Convention (among other agreements), provides additional rights to victims of armed combat. The Bush Administration, by refusing to treat them as POW's is either implicitly or explicitly determining that the detainess are NOT victims of armed combat and therefore the detainees do not have the humanitarian rights provided by the Geneva Convention. While I haven't read the Geneva Convention in the past week, apparently it provides for adjudication by courts martial (and possibly civilian courts). Again, by not being POW's and subject to the Geneva Convention, the detainees do not have that right and may, according to Bush, be subject to military tribunals which, as we've seen, can have whatever rules of evidence and standard of evidence they want to apply.

I also printed some articles written by law professors on the use of tribunals in this situation and the status of the detainees. I'm going to read those tonight. I just get the impression that we're being hypocritical as hell because it suits us today. I'm not so naive that I don't know this goes on every day, but it just bugs the hell out me that (i) the government lies to my face, and (ii) the American public doesn't care because they happen to be pissed at these guys today. If al-Qaeda had flown into the Hilton in Haifa or blown up a supermarket in Delhi, I'm sure the public would be all for a fair trial.

[Ranger-75]

Bryon,

What is OAS? Organization of Arab (a$$inine) States? If it is who cares what they want, they don't control International Law.

Are you muslin??

Are you the former CPT I i traded posts with some months ago in the bbs?

The US only recognizes recognize human rights "law" as protections to civilians from their own govermnents, not from enemy governments.

The AQs captures are not accorded protecrted status because ther were not and are not following the Law of War as expressed in the Geneva conventions which requires, among other things that combatants obey the Law of War.

Don't get human rights law confused with huminatarian law. Contrary to your post, the former has only recently been embraced by the international communits and is intended to protect civilians from their own government. It does NOT apply in this scenario which is a conflict between nations (& factional groups)

Humanitariun Law as expressed in the Hauge & Geneva conventions regulat conduct between opposing nations.


The US is in compliance with the latter while the former does not apply.

Further, the US is not violating and of its own constitutional provisions. You lose certain rights while incarcerated.

[bradfordkay]

Ranger, the OAS is the Organization of American States - headquartered in Washington DC. The United States of America is a charter member of this organization, which it (the govt of the US) uses to support the war on drugs, among other purposes. Of course, the nation who has violated the charter of the OAS most often is also the United States.

Historically, our nation has been one which uses international law to promote our beliefs while ignoring it when it interferes with our desires.

The discussion which brought about this thread is an excellent example. As a people, we (citizens of the US of A) demonize Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor before declaring war. Within the past year we have attacked and destroyed a sovereign government with no declaration of war. It does not matter that we consider the government a criminal government, it was the government of a sovereign nation whose territory we invaded without any declaration of war.

I find it hypocritical that our government can "declare war on terrorism" and then refuse to grant POW status to those captured in that "war". If the detainees were soldiers of the Taliban, then they were soldiers of a sovereign nation and are therefore either prisoners of war or illegal detainees. The Al Qaida detainees are a different situation. They are international criminals and should be treated as such.

You say that we only recognize human rights law as pertaining to treatment of civilians by their own government and not by the governments of "enemy nations". In order for us to be an enemy nation there has to have been a declaration of war - which has yet to happen in this instance. Do you think that we would not raise an unholy stink if another nation were to send troops into our territory to capture people and then hold them prisoner in another country?

I am as outraged as any American by the events of 9-11, but as a student of history I am not proud of the methods my country's government has used to strike back. I know of no major international player who has not violated international law at some time, but for us to constantly badger other nations about following such law, and then blythely ignore those same laws when it suits us strikes me as being the height of hypocracy.

No, I am not a muslim. I am a citizen of the United States, Episcopalian, and am proud that we are allowed to have a difference of opinion with our government without being branded as traitors or criminals. It is, after all, one of our constitutional rights. I also happen to feel that we, of all nations, should be careful to ensure that we do obey international law.

[crusher]

this topic does not belong here on this forum. thank you very much

[bradfordkay]

You're right... Matrix has provided a separate forum for issues such as this. I guess that I responded to a relatively uncivil response and then got carried away. I apologise for my part in extending this thread.

[Ranger-75]

If the thread doesn't belong here, can it be moved (or deleted)?

Originally posted by bradfordkay
Ranger, the OAS is the Organization of American States - headquartered in Washington DC. The United States of America is a charter member of this organization, which it (the govt of the US) uses to support the war on drugs, among other purposes. Of course, the nation who has violated the charter of the OAS most often is also the United States.

Historically, our nation has been one which uses international law to promote our beliefs while ignoring it when it interferes with our desires.

The discussion which brought about this thread is an excellent example. As a people, we (citizens of the US of A) demonize Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor before declaring war. Within the past year we have attacked and destroyed a sovereign government with no declaration of war. It does not matter that we consider the government a criminal government, it was the government of a sovereign nation whose territory we invaded without any declaration of war.

I find it hypocritical that our government can "declare war on terrorism" and then refuse to grant POW status to those captured in that "war". If the detainees were soldiers of the Taliban, then they were soldiers of a sovereign nation and are therefore either prisoners of war or illegal detainees. The Al Qaida detainees are a different situation. They are international criminals and should be treated as such.

You say that we only recognize human rights law as pertaining to treatment of civilians by their own government and not by the governments of "enemy nations". In order for us to be an enemy nation there has to have been a declaration of war - which has yet to happen in this instance. Do you think that we would not raise an unholy stink if another nation were to send troops into our territory to capture people and then hold them prisoner in another country?

I am as outraged as any American by the events of 9-11, but as a student of history I am not proud of the methods my country's government has used to strike back. I know of no major international player who has not violated international law at some time, but for us to constantly badger other nations about following such law, and then blythely ignore those same laws when it suits us strikes me as being the height of hypocracy.

No, I am not a muslim. I am a citizen of the United States, Episcopalian, and am proud that we are allowed to have a difference of opinion with our government without being branded as traitors or criminals. It is, after all, one of our constitutional rights. I also happen to feel that we, of all nations, should be careful to ensure that we do obey international law.

I was thinking that OAS meant that. Just couldn't remember, however, even as such, the OAS does not write international law. Look at our combined performance in the "war on drugs".

You're referring of course to Kosovo? That is / was actually part of Serbia, and I was never in favor of that action and actually spoke against it (very softly). If you are referring to Afganistan, sorry, I do not agree. That government (the taliban) was warned for a month to turn over the criminals responsible for planning the terrorist attacks or suffer the consequences and they refused.

The US did not "declare war on terrorism" That is a govenrment euphenistic BS term bandied about like the"war on drugs" and the "war on poverty". how about a "war on idiotic politicians"? I'd sign up for that one. When we went from desert shield to desert storm I suggested to my friends that we round up every menber of both houses of congress and form a "congrssional brigade" and send them into the first attack wave. It got some laughs, but that was about it.

The US did "recognize" the Taliban government (just as it was about collapsed) precisely so that the captured taliban could be declared POWS, which they were so declared. the A-Q yahoos are not POWs because their actions do not accord them that status under the Geneva conventions. Read it if you have questions.

The US position has consistently held that the "fundamental human rights under international law", (only recently developed) is meant to protect citizens from their own governments. That's the official word I got from a printed source (a government printing source even). The problem is that that same book, cites these very same situations as not falling into any "neat" category. This makes makes it very hard for the folks on the ground to do their jobs and complicates the internation situation greatly.

You're right we wouldn't like it if it was done to us (look at the reaction to the hijackings). That's why we have "good" neighboors, wide ocean frontiers, the worlds largest Navy and and some serious air defense capability. Not to mantion a highly trained Army (but not the largest in the world). At the same time, you don't notice the US Army patrolling the streets of NYC or LA right?