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

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



Message

farglebargle -> US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 7:00:19 AM)

http://presscue.com/node/39281

quote:


In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

The Court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants,” and ruled that even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantánamo had any constitutional rights.


The 1984 Convention on Torture says differently.

I'd say that in declaring the prisoners "Untermensch", the Neoconservatives have reached Moral Equivalence with the National Socialists...




DomKen -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 10:40:48 PM)

Torture is a forseeable consequence of being taken prisoner by the US military? I'm going to have to get this opinion and read this for myself. If this judge actually wrote that she needs to be removed from the bench.



TheHeretic -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 10:44:29 PM)

     So, Fargle, do have any intention of ever addressing the FACT that we have the right, under the Geneva Conventions, to simply execute these prisoners, by whatever means appropriate?



Zensee -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 11:02:57 PM)

How do you figure that, H?


Z.



DomKen -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 11:13:10 PM)

He's arguing that they are illegal combatants. Which is true for those taken prisoner in combat while not in a recognizable military uniform. However by all interpretations of the Geneva Convention that right ends if the illegal combatant is taken from the battle field by the captors.

Tortue is still not acceptable practice though.



Zensee -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 11:23:58 PM)

True, DK, and as I understand it, until their status is determined they are to be deemed POWs and treated as such. I don't believe is a category of 'unlawful combatant' under the GC so they must be tried under applicable civilian law. This trial by accusation business is neither legal nor rational.


Z. 



DomKen -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 11:33:48 PM)

I'm not really in the mood to look it up tonight but IIRC the Geneva Convention does have  a small section on what makes for an illegal combatant and what can be down about it. I'm pretty sure it is extrapolated from the old battlefield spy rules such that an enemy combatant caught not in uniform but taking offensive action is eligible for summary execution on the spot. However that same rule, again IIRC, also specifies that such action is only allowable at the time of capture and not once the combatant is removed from the field.



Bufotenin -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 11:34:51 PM)

Not to mention the non-combatant detainees. Purchasing prisoners from the Northern Alliance probably wasn't such a good idea. 



Zensee -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/12/2008 11:37:33 PM)

But if you catch a guy in enemy uniform engaging in offensive action on the battle field you can kill him too - (IIRC). In fact I thought that was the whole idea of dressing the same and running around with guns...


Z.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 6:14:56 AM)

More good reasons to pull out of the Geneva Convention. If the US signs a treaty, they need to hold themselves to it, as that is showing honor. Instead they need to stop putting themselves into positions they will not be able to hold.



farglebargle -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 6:30:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     So, Fargle, do have any intention of ever addressing the FACT that we have the right, under the Geneva Conventions, to simply execute these prisoners, by whatever means appropriate?



Your claim presupposes that ALL THE PRISONERS were captured as spies.

Once you can PROVE THAT CLAIM, then we can address it.

That's what the whole Habeas Corpus thing is about.

Hey, if you give them Due Process and Equal Protection, as guaranteed to ALL PERSONS by the 5th and 14th Amendments, I don't care if you execute a criminal after conviction, or deal with a POW in the proper manner, or deal with a Spy in the proper manner.

Of course, then you can't complain when OUR spies are beheaded, can you?





KenDckey -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 7:15:53 AM)

Court of Appeals Ruling

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/04opinions/04-5393a.pdf

did anyone read it



TheHeretic -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 8:07:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

He's arguing that they are illegal combatants.



       That would be the one, Ken.  Knowing what a stickler for the rules Fargle is, I'm wondering if he has a reasonable answer to the question, or if it will just produce a shrieking change of subject.



DomKen -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 8:22:18 AM)

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.



Bufotenin -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 12:42:20 PM)

Would someone PLEASE show me the part of the Third Geneva Convention (the one that actually applies to PRISONERS, not the battlefield) that PRISONERS deemed Unlawful Combatants can be executed? I've never been able to find it myself. Maybe I missed it? Because I'm pretty sure it only separates individuals into POWs (who should then be granted rights as POWs) and civilians (who would have the right to be tried for crimes under domestic law).

The Geneva Conventions exist for a reason. Even if the people we're at war with are savages who flaunt them, by applying them ourselves we rob the enemy of a powerful propaganda/recruiting tool. If we deprive prisoners of due process, detain them indefinitely, and subject them to torture, (not to mention, as advocated, executing disarmed combatants as well as any suspicious civilians) then they're going to be less likely to lay down their weapons and surrender, instead attempting to kill as many of our soldiers as possible before being killed. That further endangers the lives of our troops and robs us of potential intelligence. As far as I'm concerned, to use a tired charge levied at anyone who's ever questioned the way the Iraq War's been handled, anyone who supports such policies is aiding the terrorists.



luckydog1 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 1:30:45 PM)

Bufotenin, its not just the 3rd geneva convention that applies.  The 4th does also, article 5 paticularly.  The 3rd defines who is a POW and what protections they get.  Basically it defines POWs as people who wear uniforms with accurate rank, and operate openly.  OR people who openly work for them with ID and insignia.  The purpose of this is not to get better tretment for our POWS, but to protect the civilians in the area of the fighting.  Soldiers are POWs, Soldiers operate openly and in a rank structure.  Terrorists/Partisans/commandoes do not.  They try to hide among civilians, getting civilians killed.

The 4th does not give the right to kill unlawfull combatants, nor to torture them.  It does allow them to be exempted from "protected Person" (civilian) status and to be treated differently than regular POW and for that status to remain untill the security situation has been resolved.  It does specifically allow them to held with out communication, as long as security requires.

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".




Bufotenin -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 2:20:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

The 4th does not give the right to kill unlawfull combatants, nor to torture them.  It does allow them to be exempted from "protected Person" (civilian) status and to be treated differently than regular POW and for that status to remain untill the security situation has been resolved.  It does specifically allow them to held with out communication, as long as security requires.



"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."
 
I'm not in the legal profession, but to my eyes it looks as if Article 5 stipulates that they forfeit rights of communication but otherwise retain protected person status, including the right to 'fair and regular trial'. I see no wording to indicate that they become wholly exempt from 'protected person' status.



luckydog1 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 2:37:32 PM)

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.



cyberdude611 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 2:40:55 PM)

The issue is that these people being detained were not part of a nation-state's military. And the GC really does not address that issue very well. The document is a bit obsolete when it comes to today's militant tactics. The US is certainly not the only nation that has treated "unlawful combatants" in a controversal way. Russia, China, Israel, and many other countries do not consider terrorists protected under the Geneva Conventions.

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.



luckydog1 -> RE: US Judges -- Gitmo Prisoners are Sub-Human (1/13/2008 2:56:15 PM)

Cyberdude, I do not believe any of the people in question are alleged Taliban.  It is Al Queda folks that are the question.  I believe all the Taliban POWs were remanded to Afghanistan (after never leaving the region) years ago.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
2.734375E-02