RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human

RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FullCircle -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 3:05:17 PM)
"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as ‘moral indignation’, which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue." Erich Fromm. Torture whoever you like but then see if your society is still worth saving for the values it supposedly upholds. Why are you all quibbling about the Geneva convention that was written so long ago, has your morality not moved on since then? Do you think soldiers that desert the battlefield should still be shot dead? A lot has changed since the Geneva convention was written so maybe by debating such things you are all missing the real point. Whatever you do to people you can’t moan about it when they start doing the same to the people your enemy has captured. That was the idea behind the convention; rules of humanity a way in which you would want your captured soldiers to be treated. You give your enemies an excuse to mistreat your soldiers by not respecting the laws of humanity. So define a soldier as this or that, wearing Bermuda shorts, high viz. Jacket, do you think your enemy cares about such things? It only cares about what it perceives as your treatment of its people. It may still mistreat your people of coarse but at least you’d then be winning the propaganda war instead of losing both wars.

farglebargle -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 3:10:11 PM)
quote: Back to the OP, attempting to sue Rumsfeld personaly for a violation of the "Religious Freedom Restoration" act is nonsense. And Farg no where in the RFRA, does it state that it applies to "all Persons". The 5th and 14th Amendments take precedence over any legislative acts.

farglebargle -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 3:20:40 PM)
GCIII (Article 5): "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. " - Affirmed in Hamden v. Rumsfeld. "Unlawful Combatants" are called "Civilians".

FirmhandKY -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 4:02:09 PM)
Perhaps an important point that is being missed is that the Geneva Convention has done little to nothing to protect American combatants during warfare, other than on the European front during WWII. The Rules of the Convention are a lingering remainder of the Western methods and beliefs about how to fight wars between nation-stations. These methods are honored, or believed in by few other countries or cultures in the world. An important question in my mind therefore is: What utility (if any) do such beliefs, or treaties have now, and in the future of conflict in the modern world? Firm

Bufotenin -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 4:03:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Well the status question is either/or. like being pregnant. And they are not "protected people". They are not civilains, to treat them as such makes a mockery of the entire Geneva process. So would ripping out thier fingernails and pouring acid on thier faces, which isn't what is occuring. It says in case of trial, not that trials are mandatory. The millitary tribunal process has been screwed up in several ways, I can't deny that. At the time that America decides it security needs are met, they are to be given full Protected Person status. Since that has not yet occured they do not yet have PP status. There are still requirements to treat them humanely. But thier being held with out communication/in secret/deneyed lawyers was a large part of thier claim, and it is explicitly allowed under Geneva. I see no reason to believe that, according to wording of the Geneva Conventions, they're anyting other than "protected persons". As I said, nothing in article 5 indicates that they be fully stripped of 'protected person' status, it solely exempts them from the right of communication and states that they be returned the full rights of 'protected person' status. While it does seem a mockery of the Conventions to classify them as civilians due to their role in the conflict, the option would be to classify them as POW's under Convention 3, Article 4, Sections 2 and 6. Though subsection (b) of part 2 would, in most cases, be inapplicable, we would still be in better compliance to the Conventions than we currently are. I concede that the Geneva Conventions probably need updating (or replacing), as they fail to adequately address the issue of non-uniform combatants (of which the U.S., too, has plenty of in our employ). I don't even believe that a strict adherence to the Conventions, as written, is possible, due to the nature of the enemy. What I argue is that the administration should attempt , to the best of their ability, to adhere to the Conventions, provide access to due process (in order to ensure true civilians aren't detained indefinitely), and at least appear to be concerned about human rights in stead of flaunting loopholes. It took years to even get trials for the detainees, some have been found to be non-combatants, countless others have been released and deported without any knowledge of the evidence against them, and they've refused to take an open stance against defined methods of torture. Under the standards currently applied by the U.S. anyone in a hostile region becomes potentially subject to indefinite detention and physical coercion, regardless of whether or not they're a genuine party to the conflict.

Bufotenin -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 4:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The Taliban was not a recognized government. The UN did not recognize them. And the only two nations that did (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) choose not to recognize them any longer after September 11th. So the Taliban became a "militant group" instead of a government of a nation-state. When it comes to the Taliban, that's not even close to the issue. Regardless of whether or not their government was recognized the Talibani soldiers still fell well-within the provisions of Convention III Article 4's definition of POWs.

KenDckey -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 5:39:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Court of Appeals Ruling http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/04opinions/04-5393a.pdf did anyone read it Did you? This is not the court case referenced by the OP. Was the only hit when I checked the rulings by name. Course could be that they didn't post the ruling.

luckydog1 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 5:53:50 PM)
BUFO, holding them without communication means no lawyer, no trial, ect. If they engage in prohibited actions they do not get the rights of POW. People working for the US illegally risk the same fate if caught. The rights of POW are for soldiers. Those who operate as part of a definied command structure, following orders, answerable to superiors ect. The point of these conventions is not to protect the US soldiers, but to protect the civilians in war fighting areas. If you have a situataion where commandos are hiding in familly homes to shoot at soldiers, the soldiers will start destroying every home. The point of the Geneva conventions is minimize/ eliminate such civilian suffering.

popeye1250 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 6:19:33 PM)
I wonder if al qeada has these types of arguments among themselves?

Zensee -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 6:23:07 PM)
I don't imagine so, Popeye. That's why we need to behave more like savages than them. Shock and awe! Z.

Muttling -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 6:30:06 PM)
I couldn't find the actual text of the ruling either, but I did find a quote from it on ABC news that re-itterates a comment that I noted in a previous thread.... The Constitution does not apply to them because they are NOT on U.S. soil. Here's the text of the ruling and the link: quote: The judge ruled the prisoners were not covered by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because they "are aliens and were located outside sovereign United States territory" at the time of the alleged violations. http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=4121887&page=2 The Constitution's jurisdiction has limitations. That said, the Geneva Conventions and the Unified Military Code of Justice definitely apply.

Muttling -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 6:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wonder if al qeada has these types of arguments among themselves? Nope. However, if we want to take issue with other countries abusing our soldiers when they are captured we can't be guilty of doing the same to prisoners we capture. The acts of extraordinary rendition and claiming that water boarding is not torture is going to come back to haunt us in the future. I strongly suspect we're going to have U.S. service men and women shipped to other countries for rough methods of interrogation. When we take issue with them treating our soldiers that well, there will be no sympathy to be found and no justice to be had as they are just following U.S. protocols.

Bufotenin -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 7:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 BUFO, holding them without communication means no lawyer, no trial, ect. If they engage in prohibited actions they do not get the rights of POW. People working for the US illegally risk the same fate if caught. The rights of POW are for soldiers. Those who operate as part of a definied command structure, following orders, answerable to superiors ect. The point of these conventions is not to protect the US soldiers, but to protect the civilians in war fighting areas. If you have a situataion where commandos are hiding in familly homes to shoot at soldiers, the soldiers will start destroying every home. The point of the Geneva conventions is minimize/ eliminate such civilian suffering. If having forfeited right of communication means no trial, then why would the Convention say "and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention"? Why wouldn't it say "be regarded as having forfeited rights of and the rights of fair and regular trial under the present Convention"? Or, if being without the right of communication automatically means no trial, as you suggest, why mention trial at all? The Geneva conventions are meant to protect both civilians and soldiers. That's kind of why they set rules for the treatment of POWs. And if you're going to be anal about intention, Article 5 of the Convention IV wasn't even meant to apply to combatants. It's was intended to apply to intelligence agents and their accomplices amongst the civilian population working against the occupying powers, not armed forces on a battlefield (organized or not). If you want to apply the Conventions based on original intention rather than literal interpretation, like some reverse defense of the 2nd amendment, then nothing in Convention 4 would apply to the detainees and your point would be completely moot.

farglebargle -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 7:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 BUFO, holding them without communication means no lawyer, no trial, ect. That's not what The Supreme Court said in 1942. "By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

luckydog1 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 9:44:10 PM)
Because the loss of comunication is not an automatic thing, it is based on security considerations.

luckydog1 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/14/2008 12:41:58 AM)
Farg, the Geneva Convention 3 and 4 were passed in 1949, so take precedent. Treaties become law of the land. The actual treaties, not make believe treaties. By following the laws of war combatants and civilians get certain protections. They have to qualify for Geneva Convention protections, in order to get either POW or "Protected Person". What happens to those who do not qualify for either catagory is left rather undefined, and is based on the holding parties percieved security needs. According to the actuall Geneva Conventions. BFOTENIN, if a person is being held with out communication, how could they have a trial? Unlawfull combatants include but are not limited to Spies, who do far more than just gather intell. They differ greatly from soldiers who are just told what to do..ie attack that hill...Commandoes are independant, making actuall decisions on tactics. They know far more about what and why than your average draftee or farm kid. Treating them the same is nonsense. Again, they are not allowed to be shot or tortured, but they do not get certain POW rights.

Vendaval -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/14/2008 1:03:43 AM)
How do these laws apply to mercenaries and security for hire, like Blackwater?

luckydog1 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/14/2008 1:35:14 AM)
Geneva also covers employees of an army as well as Merchant Marines, I would assume the same would apply. If they follow the Rules of War, and operate openly they should get POW status. The reality on the ground has been far different though.

meatcleaver -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/14/2008 6:44:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling The acts of extraordinary rendition and claiming that water boarding is not torture is going to come back to haunt us in the future. I strongly suspect we're going to have U.S. service men and women shipped to other countries for rough methods of interrogation. When we take issue with them treating our soldiers that well, there will be no sympathy to be found and no justice to be had as they are just following U.S. protocols. Too true. Countries are judged not on legal doublespeak and niceities but on the morality of their actions. The Bush administration has been found wanting and internationally is judged accordingly. When Bush talks about fighting for civilisation, the world laughs.

farglebargle -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/14/2008 7:08:30 AM)
I think the real issue here is we're all fighting over the bait offered by the torturers, to distract us from the Dishonor, Shame, and Discgrace their acts have done to their uniforms and this nation. They're setting up an argument about some minor details regarding the sanctions permitted by the withdrawal of "POW" status. As always in an apparent Constitutional Republic, we return to that Constitution, and the 5th and 14th Amendment Guarantees that THE GOVERNMENT will not deprive ANY PERSON of Due Process and Equal Protection. Summary Execution OFF THE BATTLEFIELD is a deprivation of those rights, therefore, Captured Spies removed from the battlefield get TRIALS *BEFORE* THEY ARE HANGED. And since TORTURE is a deprivation of those rights, also, you don't get to torture them either. Otherwise, aren't all the claims about the USA standing Freedom and Liberty complete and total bullshit, REGARDLESS of what the GCI-IV and/or the supplements from the 70's say? That's why the Supreme Court UNANIMOUS DECISION from during WWII is so relevant. It specifies what the US *STANDS FOR* Not just what it's obligated to do... And, like it's been said so often, "When you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Like falling for the lame justifications of these PHONY AMERICANS to support their torturing of prisoners, depriving them of counsel, fake courts, etc...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125