State sponsored crime

[C1ay]

Why can they not be standard prisoners of war? Because then the USA would have to treat them humanely, stop torturing, and allow visits by the Red Cross.

Don't know, IMO they should be standard prisoners of war.

[Biochemist]

If they are prisoners of war, (which I agree with you about, they should be) then they should be treated as prisoners of war...

Well, under Geneva convention rules, these folks are probably best characterized as spies. This means that we could legally shoot them. Is this the process you would advocate?

 

If not, then any treatment that we may elect to offer them is at the mercy of a government that is allowed to execute them under existing international law.

 

The prisoners are being treated more than fairly. They should not be elevated to POW status if they are not POWs under international law.

[C1ay]

Well, under Geneva convention rules, these folks are probably best characterized as spies.

How do you figure? As far as I know all of them were captured in battle. Are you saying they were caught attempting espionage?

[Biochemist]

How do you figure? As far as I know all of them were captured in battle. Are you saying they were caught attempting espionage?

Captured in battle without wearing uniforms or insignia. This makes them indistungishable for the civilian population under the Convention. The rules of war are to prevent civiliian casualties. If they were not wearing uniforms or insignias, they are themselves violating the Convention (which they certainly were, by this and many other infractions) and could have been shot as spies immediately.

 

But the US is more humane than that. We typically exceed Convention rules. Our opponents clearly have no intent to minimize civilian casualities. Quite the opposite.

[C1ay]

Captured in battle without wearing uniforms or insignia. This makes them indistungishable for the civilian population under the Convention. The rules of war are to prevent civiliian casualties. If they were not wearing uniforms or insignias, they are themselves violating the Convention (which they certainly were, by this and many other infractions) and could have been shot as spies immediately.

 

But the US is more humane than that. We typically exceed Convention rules. Our opponents clearly have no intent to minimize civilian casualities. Quite the opposite.

The Geneva Convention is a treaty between the signatories of the convention. Is Al-Qaeda a signatory to the Geneva Convention? Can they violate a treaty they have not signed?

[Biochemist]

The Geneva Convention is a treaty between the signatories of the convention. Is Al-Qaeda a signatory to the Geneva Convention? Can they violate a treaty they have not signed?

Seems to me you have to fish or cut bait here.

 

Either we honor the treaty or we don't. We can honor the treaty and still not grant them POW rights, since they were not compliant. If we suggest that they have incremental rights because they are not even a country (and hence have no standing to sign) that would make the treaty a farce. No one would ever have signed. We sign treaties like this to earn treatment for our own prisoners. Some are demanding that we honor rules far higher than the treaty, thus rewarding their non-compliance.

 

The prisoners should be treated humanely, but not granted POW status. That is how they are being treated now.

[C1ay]

We can honor the treaty and still not grant them POW rights, since they were not compliant.

Please feel free to provide links to support that. The Geneva Convention does not require uniforms or insignia nor does it define "unlawful combatant". In fact, The law referred to by the U.S. on unlawful combatants is a U.S. domestic law passed in 1942 as a result of several German saboteurs caught within the U.S. It is not a part of the Geneva Convention and has not been agreed to by any foreign nations. You might note that under Protocol I all that is required is that a combatant carry his arms openly, no other distinguishing means are required. On this subject the U.S. interpretation is unique among all the signatories of the Geneva Convention.

[infamous]

On this subject the U.S. interpretation is unique among all the signatories of the Geneva Convention.

Not only is it unique among all the signatories, it is also apropos for the survivors of 9/11.

[Boerseun]

Just so that we're all on the same hymn-sheet here:

 

Prisoner of War (POW): A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy.

 

War Criminal: A person or country is determined to be a war criminal if found guilty of violating international laws and conventions that make up the law of war.

 

Illegal Detainee: A person is an illegal detainee if prevented from proceeding or restrained in custody for alleged violation of international law or other reason claimed by the organization or group under which the person is being held. Detention is illegal if the reason he is being detained is in violation of international law or international agreements.

 

99% of Guantanamo prisoners weren't captured in combat. They were captured as the result of investigations based on intelligence, some of which was proven to be erroneous. I can't remember the individual's name, but a couple of months ago, the first person was released after more than two years because the evidence keeping him interned was shown to be flaky. He never had access to counsel.

 

Even if (and I believe that the majority of them are guilty, US intelligence can't be that bad...) an individual is found guilty, he wasn't fighting under order from any government. So he can't be a 'prisoner of war', according to the above Geneva Convention definitions. At best, he's an Illegal Detainee. If I blow up US interests in South Africa, sure - the US will be pissed at me, but they must insist on SA capturing and prosecuting me under SA law. They can apply for extradition under International Law, however. If they spirit me away, ignoring my country's sovereignty, I will be classified as an 'Illegal Detainee', and the US will reclassify itself as 'War Criminal'.

 

The issue at stake here is that the US can pass any emergency-inspired laws, but it doesn't bind any country outside the US to it. US law is by no means International Law.

 

The terrorists, Al Qaida, or anybody else, have lowered themselves to the level where Laws of any given country are to be trampled upon.

 

Civilization is based on due process. The terrorists, seeing as we have to be consistent in what we do, deserve the right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty. The individual I referred to above, who happened to be just in the wrong place at the wrong time, testifies to the danger of denying them that one, basic right.

 

They deserve due process. Denying them that, is lowering ourselves to the level of the barbarian. We ignore the fruits of thousands of years of philosphy regarding civilization. Wether the terrorists have lowered themselves beyond civilization, is immaterial. We can't afford to become engaged in a quid pro quo war, for the price we'll have to pay as civilized people might seem small at first, but its the basis of what we, as civilized people, are. You might as well tear up your Constitution and be done with it.

 

Due process is having access to counsel. Respect for civilization (which we should have, seeing as we shouldn't lower ourselves to these levels), implies the Red Cross having access to the suspected terrorists. Locating the prison facility in Guatanamo Bay so that it's not on US soil, so that we can duck and dive laws and responsibilities regarding issues such as these, is perilously lowering our respect for what we would like to call 'civilization'. Even if they were classified as 'spies' as was pointed out in a previous post, they should not be executed on 'suspicion' of espionage. This would once again be lowering ourselves further. There would need to be a watertight case built by prosecutors, and counsel for the defence should try and find cracks in the case. That's civilization. With all due respect to US citizens affected by 9/11, and anybody who've lost friends and relatives, I can understand the emotions bubbling to the surface. But we should act objectively, regardless of emotions. It was emotions that made the terrorists act the way they did in the first place. A world where the single biggest military power with a vast nuclear arsenal and a rapid strike capability is allowed to be directed by emotions, is, quite frankly, not a world in which I would wish to live.

 

Coming back to the topic of 'State Sponsored Crime' - would the US be willing to have independent international observers come and make an inventory of the US's arsenal? Let's see - are there any landmines stashed away somewhere? Any anti-personnel mines? Open up your chemical research institutions - are there any biological warfare agents under development, or stashed away? These are all banned by International agreement. Let's see your nuclear arsenal - how, in the USSR's absence, do you justify the sheer size of it? Weapons of mass destruction... hmmmmmm.

Why does the US refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement, thereby nullifying the effectiveness of it? The US, being the world's single largest polluter, doesn't seem to give a rip that its industrial complex is polluting Canada and Mexico, for instance. And the world stand by idly, watching this, because nobody wants to offend the 'States, thereby losing valuable export deals. This alone, in my opinion, would be seen as a crime a few years from now.

[nkt]

Nice response, Boerseun.

The issue at stake here is that the US can pass any emergency-inspired laws, but it doesn't bind any country outside the US to it. US law is by no means International Law.

Well, the USA has actually passed a law saying that it's laws count for more than other countries laws!

Civilization is based on due process. The terrorists, seeing as we have to be consistent in what we do, deserve the right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty. The individual I referred to above, who happened to be just in the wrong place at the wrong time, testifies to the danger of denying them that one, basic right.

The UK has let half of our "terrorist suspects" go, after the cases were found to be utterly without merit. Sadly, it took over two years for them to get that far, due to the lack of transparency. The government then changed the law again, to make the internment legal!

They deserve due process. Denying them that, is lowering ourselves to the level of the barbarian. We ignore the fruits of thousands of years of philosphy regarding civilization. Wether the terrorists have lowered themselves beyond civilization, is immaterial. We can't afford to become engaged in a quid pro quo war, for the price we'll have to pay as civilized people might seem small at first, but its the basis of what we, as civilized people, are. You might as well tear up your Constitution and be done with it.

 

Due process is having access to counsel. Respect for civilization (which we should have, seeing as we shouldn't lower ourselves to these levels), implies the Red Cross having access to the suspected terrorists. Locating the prison facility in Guatanamo Bay so that it's not on US soil, so that we can duck and dive laws and responsibilities regarding issues such as these, is perilously lowering our respect for what we would like to call 'civilization'. Even if they were classified as 'spies' as was pointed out in a previous post, they should not be executed on 'suspicion' of espionage. This would once again be lowering ourselves further. There would need to be a watertight case built by prosecutors, and counsel for the defence should try and find cracks in the case. That's civilization. With all due respect to US citizens affected by 9/11, and anybody who've lost friends and relatives, I can understand the emotions bubbling to the surface. But we should act objectively, regardless of emotions. It was emotions that made the terrorists act the way they did in the first place. A world where the single biggest military power with a vast nuclear arsenal and a rapid strike capability is allowed to be directed by emotions, is, quite frankly, not a world in which I would wish to live.

So worth saying, I kept the whole thing. If you want to be the adult in the playground, and not the bully, you must listen to the agreed rules and respect them. You don't just change them on a case-by-case basis. That's what small kids do to trick other small kids!

 

You cannot classify many of the people in Gitmo or other secret US detention facilities as "spys" because when you snatch people from their homes, they generally aren't in uniform. If Afghanistan had arrested George Bush, they could have validly executed him on the spot as a spy, because he wasn't wearing a uniform?!? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

 

As for "war"... The US declared the war in Iraq was over nearly two years ago! They did it mostly to prevent having to pay combat bonuses to the poor sods getting blown to bits over there, but, go check! The USA is not at war.

 

And as for non-state actors, etc. Well, the US invaded Afghanistan, not the other way around. The US invaded Iraq, and not the other way around. If you are now saying that the Taliban were not the leaders of Afghanistan, then who was? And where are they now? Do they meet your curious definition of a "state actor"?

 

The behaviour of the UK and US towards the people they have captured is most of the reason why we are seeing more problems now than before. Blowing people up on suspicion alone, along with the entire town council, is not a way to reduce terror on either side. It just makes for more people who are convinced they will be killed on a whim, so they might as well go blow up one American at the same time. Die trying, rather than just be killed out of hand.

 

</rant>

[C1ay]

Prisoner of War (POW): A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy.

Do you mean GCIII and GCIV?

 

Why does the US refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement, thereby nullifying the effectiveness of it?

The exemptions in that piece of trash would do nothing but export jobs from the U.S. to developing nations. Countries going through industrial revolutions like China and India are exempt or also refuse to sign. It is a flawed piece of legislation.

[nkt]

The exemptions in that piece of trash [Kyoto] would do nothing but export jobs from the U.S. to developing nations. Countries going through industrial revolutions like China and India are exempt or also refuse to sign. It is a flawed piece of legislation.

Agreed. There is little point signing up to something that is so utterly worthless. However, the USA should put forward some more positive ideas, rather than just refuse.

 

China is going to be the biggest polluter soon, if it isn't already. Exempting countries so they can get more polluting isn't sensible, either. And why should population be the defining factor for the amount of polution a country can produce? Surely that simply encourages large fast growing third world countires to grow fast in future.

 

I can see the salesmen now - "Clone a million people, get 2% off your Carbon Tax!"

[C1ay]

Exempting countries so they can get more polluting isn't sensible, either.

That's exactly the problem. Polluting businesses will export their production to places they are exempt instead of increasing their cost of production to clean up their processes.

[Biochemist]

...Civilization is based on due process.....

This was a really good post, B.

 

(excepty for the diversion to Kyoto at the end :hihi:)

[Biochemist]

Please feel free to provide links to support that. The Geneva Convention does not require uniforms or insignia nor does it define "unlawful combatant".

Sure it does. Plain language in the Thrid convention. Your own link is above.

...You might note that under Protocol I all that is required is that a combatant carry his arms openly, no other distinguishing means are required....

This is the main reason the US (among others) did not sign the Protocol 1 addendum in 1977. The US had already experienced EXACTLY the problem that we are experiencing now with asymetric warfare against non-uniformed combattants. Protocol I was a material change to the original 4 Conventions, and should not be considered as a peer document. Certainly not by the US, who was not a signatory.

[C1ay]

Sure it does. Plain language in the Thrid convention. Your own link is above.

From the third convention:

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

These combatants are not required to have uniforms or insignia. They can be plain citizens that take up arms. As long as their arms are displayed openly they meet the requirements for POWs. Note: This is not from Protocol I.

 

BTW, most all of Al-Qaeda dresses the same, why would their burkas (or whatever they call them) not qualify as their uniform?

[Biochemist]

These combatants are not required to have uniforms or insignia. They can be plain citizens that take up arms. As long as their arms are displayed openly they meet the requirements for POWs.

C1- I am a little surprised by this direction. The intent of the Conventions is to protect civilians. The allowance you described is for the case when civilians elect to protect themselves when suddenly under attack, and are subsequently captured. This is not applicable to an extended organized rebellion where the orgaized participants attempt to blend in with the civilian population and actively use civilian residences, and civilians themselves as sheilds and targets.

 

If the uniform of Al Queda were readily apparent, there would be no such think as a suicide bomber. They would be dead guys that blew up at a distance.