Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
US detainees to get Geneva rights
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm[/url]
All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.
The White House announced the shift in policy on Tuesday, almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.
President Bush had long fought the idea that US detainees were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva Convention rights.
The defence department outlined the new policy to staff in an internal memo.
The new policy says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
The Bush administration has come under intense and sustained international criticism for its treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
The military has been using the site to house hundreds of detainees, many believed to have been picked up off battlefields in Afghanistan.
When the detention centre was established in 2002, President Bush ordered that detainees be treated "humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva".
Court steps in
At the end of June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Bush administration did not by itself have the authority to order that the detainees be tried by military commission.
It said its decision was based on both US military law and the Geneva Conventions - asserting for the first time in US law that the detainees were entitled to Geneva protections.
But the Supreme Court left open the possibility that the detainees could be tried by military commission if Congress established an appropriate legal framework for doing so.
The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on the issue on Tuesday morning, just as news of the new military policy became public.
Daniel Dell'Orto, a defence department lawyer who was the first to testify, said there were about 1,000 detainees in US military custody around the world.
Guantanamo Bay holds an estimated 450. Mr Dell'Orto did not say where the others were being held.
The new Pentagon policy applies only to detainees being held by the military, and not to those in CIA custody, such as alleged mastermind of the 11 September attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.
The White House announced the shift in policy on Tuesday, almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.
President Bush had long fought the idea that US detainees were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva Convention rights.
The defence department outlined the new policy to staff in an internal memo.
The new policy says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
The Bush administration has come under intense and sustained international criticism for its treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
The military has been using the site to house hundreds of detainees, many believed to have been picked up off battlefields in Afghanistan.
When the detention centre was established in 2002, President Bush ordered that detainees be treated "humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva".
Court steps in
At the end of June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Bush administration did not by itself have the authority to order that the detainees be tried by military commission.
It said its decision was based on both US military law and the Geneva Conventions - asserting for the first time in US law that the detainees were entitled to Geneva protections.
But the Supreme Court left open the possibility that the detainees could be tried by military commission if Congress established an appropriate legal framework for doing so.
The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on the issue on Tuesday morning, just as news of the new military policy became public.
Daniel Dell'Orto, a defence department lawyer who was the first to testify, said there were about 1,000 detainees in US military custody around the world.
Guantanamo Bay holds an estimated 450. Mr Dell'Orto did not say where the others were being held.
The new Pentagon policy applies only to detainees being held by the military, and not to those in CIA custody, such as alleged mastermind of the 11 September attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Comments
First of all, for 50 years of legal reasoning the Geneva conventions are not self executing, yet one day, in the United States only they are?
Secondly for Geneva rights to apply BOTH parties in a conflict must be signatories, One can easily argue that due to the situation, the Taliban was NOT a successor state to the previous regieme and thus was not a party to its treaties...
People forget the Geneva conventions are NOT a law, no matter how many how fucking lying pundits on sunday morning talkshows describe them as a "law" like one would break during an assualt. They are a gentlemens agreement behind states, and thier key enforcement mechanism is RECIPROCITY. If your oponent does not abide by them, even signatories can chuck them out of a window.
Thirdly, in 2005 the congress did establish legislation okaying the current tribuanals and specificly as per their powers in both article 1 allow them to do.
last but not least the claim that there are no unprotected peoples in a battle zone is PATENTLY FALSE mercenaries plus indivudals of a third party nationality that had friendly relations with the first two parties, are unprotected (because they are assumed to be mercenaries) What happened with this is that the supream court is demanding we adhere to parts of the First protocal of the 4th geneva convention (the first protocol is an ancillary document drafted and passed around AFTER the 4th convention was signed, its an additional document) WHICH WE NEVER SIGNED NOR RATIFIED THUS ITS NOT LAW HERE.
(the first protocol is the one that does expand protections to irregular forces)
All the convention demands is that a body with a certain amount of minimum characteristics (IE created by established law of the party in question) determins their status and guilt. Which in 2005 congress did create, and then the majority of the court, went and freaking ignored!
Frankly after this bald attack on the powers of congress, Id make a move to pull a justice off the bench as a warning shot. We live in a Republic governed by its legislature, NOT 9 unelected people in robes who have delusions that they are Plato's philospher kings
And for the curious, here is Article 4 section one of the fourth Geneva Convention
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Do you think it is right that the USA is holding people for years without trial, not disclosing their names for a long time and subjecting them to a treatment most of the western world would classify as nothing less then torture?
[B]Ignoring the legal and political mumbojumbo totally I have only one question(personal opinion if you will).
Do you think it is right that the USA is holding people for years without trial, not disclosing their names for a long time and subjecting them to a treatment most of the western world would classify as nothing less then torture? [/B][/QUOTE]
Let me reply to your question with a question..
if the situation was reversed, and it was the US captives being detained by the other side, do you think they would be treated well, or just beheaded?
I'm all for making sure they are gulity before any punishment, but i'm a New Yorker, My wife and mother worked at the World Trade Center. i was there almost every day for years, i lived through 9/11, but if they are guilty, fuck 'em, they dont deserve to be treated like humans.
[B]Let me reply to your question with a question..
if the situation was reversed, and it was the US captives being detained by the other side, do you think they would be treated well, or just beheaded?
I'm all for making sure they are gulity before any punishment, but i'm a New Yorker, My wife and mother worked at the World Trade Center. i was there almost every day for years, i lived through 9/11, but if they are guilty, fuck 'em, they dont deserve to be treated like humans. [/B][/QUOTE]
That is the whole point, they have not been proven guity of anything yet.
Even if the terrorists choose to act like animals it does not mean that you should. Those who are guilty of something illegal should be tried and punished. Those who are not should be set free.
It is easy to give into hate, revenge and anger when facing such things but those will only lead to more violence and the cycle of revenge.
Just look at Middle-East and you will see what I mean.
My point is that you should not sacrifice your own ideals of justice while bringing these people to face it.
-Imprisonement without trial or timetable for trial for years
-Ghost prisoners(secret prisoners/prisons)
-Inhumane interrogation methods/torture
Those are tools used by totalitarian goverments and dictatorships. Not something we should be seeing from a country who claims to be the worlds leading democracy.
[B]Ignoring the legal and political mumbojumbo totally I have only one question(personal opinion if you will).
Do you think it is right that the USA is holding people for years without trial, not disclosing their names for a long time and subjecting them to a treatment most of the western world would classify as nothing less then torture? [/B][/QUOTE]
The events at Abu Grab aside, the vast bulk of the prisoners in US military custody HAVENT been tortured, especially those at Guantanamo Bay, and what people conviently forget is the Red Cross AND Red Cresent HAVE been given access to the place. Worse yet, as far as I know the Red Cross and Red Cresent DO have access to the vast majority of the detainees identities
But detained indefinatly, yes cause its basicly the only thing to do with them. Trial? they have been are being tried and judged by a competent tribunal according to the laws.
Fighting in a warzone outside of uniform is considered by the conventions themselves to be "illegal" for the most part. You dont have to be anything more then a guy with an AK running around in a war zone, and you thus classify as "unlawfull combatant" The whole point of the damn thing is to keep wars on the up and up and to MINIMIZE the confusion between civilian and combatant, in the bad old days they strongly encouraged such people to be shot. Because everybody realized that if you had non uniformed combantants running around that were indistingusable from civilians, the end result WAS that by necessity of survival all civilians became targets.
And no, that doesnt mean they get civilian criminal trials, they do get tribunals, I know, seems not fair, but were not talking about traffic tickets here.
[B]The events at Abu Grab aside, the vast bulk of the prisoners in US military custody HAVENT been tortured, especially those at Guantanamo Bay, and what people conviently forget is the Red Cross AND Red Cresent HAVE been given access to the place. Worse yet, as far as I know the Red Cross and Red Cresent DO have access to the vast majority of the detainees identities
But detained indefinatly, yes cause its basicly the only thing to do with them. Trial? they have been are being tried and judged by a competent tribunal according to the laws.
Fighting in a warzone outside of uniform is considered by the conventions themselves to be "illegal" for the most part. You dont have to be anything more then a guy with an AK running around in a war zone, and you thus classify as "unlawfull combatant" The whole point of the damn thing is to keep wars on the up and up and to MINIMIZE the confusion between civilian and combatant, in the bad old days they strongly encouraged such people to be shot. Because everybody realized that if you had non uniformed combantants running around that were indistingusable from civilians, the end result WAS that by necessity of survival all civilians became targets.
And no, that doesnt mean they get civilian criminal trials, they do get tribunals, I know, seems not fair, but were not talking about traffic tickets here. [/B][/QUOTE]
"The International Committee of the Red Cross inspected the camp in June 2004. In a confidential report issued in July 2004 and leaked to the New York Times in November 2004, Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." The United States Government has reportedly rejected the Red Cross findings."
"On 19 November 2005, a group of experts from the Commission on Human Rights at the United Nations called off their visit to Camp Delta, originally scheduled for 6 December, saying that the United States was not allowing them to conduct private interviews with the prisoners. "Since the Americans have not accepted the minimum requirements for such a visit, we must cancel [it]," Manfred Nowak, the UN envoy in charge of investigating torture allegations around the world, told AFP. The group nevertheless stated its intention to write a report on conditions at the prison based on eyewitness accounts from released detainees, meetings with lawyers and information from human rights groups."
"On February 15, 2006 the United Nations group released their report which called on the U.S. either to release all suspected terrorists or to try them."
As to the trials:
"Lord Steyn, a prominent judge in the United Kingdom, was quoted in the British newspaper The Independent on November 26, 2003 regarding the planned trial of some prisoners by military tribunal:
As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice, I would have to say that I regard this a monstrous failure of justice. The military will act as interrogators, prosecutors and defence counsel, judges, and when death sentences are imposed, as executioners. The trials will be held in private. None of the guarantees of a fair trial need be observed."
"At the beginning of December 2003, there were media reports that military lawyers appointed to defend alleged terrorists being held by the United States at Guantánamo Bay had expressed concern about the legal process for military commissions. The Guardian newspaper from the United Kingdom[14] reported that a team of lawyers was dismissed after complaining that the rules for the forthcoming military commissions prohibited them from properly representing their clients. New York's Vanity Fair reported that some of the lawyers felt their ethical obligations were being violated by the process. The Pentagon strongly denied the claims in these media reports."
I would also recommend researching:
-"The Tipton Three"
-US soldier Sean Baker
-Australian prisoner David Hicks
-German resident(born and raised) Murat Kurnaz
-Swedish national Mehdi Ghezali
-SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape)-program
-Reports by Amnesty International
-Reports from the Red Cross
-Reports and statements from the United Nations and the European Union
-The huge amount of statements from released prisoners.
Of course most of this is officially denied by the US government. Big surprise for everyone Im sure. :rolleyes:
Lets face it, if everything would be ok with Guantanamo and other such camps/prisons there would not be such a fuss about it. Also the reports from released(innocent!) detainees are quire uniform in their descriptions of the conditions.
One side must be lying, and with the reports and statements from high places like the Red Cross, European Union and the United Nations...well.
You be the judge on which side is more likely right.
And as I said before, I care very little of the political and legal crap in this situation. I do care about what is morally and ethically the right thing to do.
[B]-Swedish national Mehdi Ghezali
[/B][/QUOTE]
Who has stated several times that people were getting money for reporting terrorists to the american army. A lot of inncents were turned in, especially foreigners, and several are still left in the camp.
The people who have become terrorists against us have not done so because we have freedoms they do not agree with. They could not care less about what we do over here in the United States. What they hate is us screwing around in their politics and economies. We influence elections, spy on them, interfere in their own disputes, and act like we control the entire planet. They don't hate our freedom; they hate us interfering with theirs.
Here's a concept that too many people fail to grasp: Democracy does not work for all cultures. Just because it's the right answer for us does not mean it is right for everyone else. But our government, and far too many of our citizens, believe that our way is the only workable way. Much like religious zealots, we go about trying to get other countries to travel our path, especially if we're not getting what we want from them the way they are doing things on their own.
China and Saudi Arabia are great examples of the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. We get a lot of cheap goods from China, and a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia. These two countries are among the worst violators of human rights in recent history. But since our government's corporate sponsors make so much money from them, we turn a blind eye toward their way of doing things.
Looking at ourselves through the eyes of others may show you some blemishes of our own that we fail to see, or are actively trying to ignore. We claim to stand for freedom, but have to problem throwing people into indefinite and undefined detention. What does this say about us to the rest of the world?