Treatment of detainees/POW's

[Fluffy]

Sorry, I thought the word combatant would be less upsetting to all sides than terrorist.

Well that is very good of you! It is probably a good idea.

I fully agree that soliders captured by Al Qaeda are far far worse off than vice versa.

I feel that the best place to defend justice is a high vantage point. I don't want my side to be simply the better of two evils (even if it is much much better). I expect moral consistency and I feel that our cause is hurt if we stoop even slightly. Why? Well because I want to support America and not Al Qaeda but I don't want to support a country who would do such things. There is no excuse for it.

 

[lamplighter]

The reason I'd rather be a US soldier being held captive by the locals is that at least my head gets cut off in a couple of weeks, the other way is to go through the never ending psychological torture United States of America: "We don't torture people in America" - Amnesty International and max prison level detainment with out having ever been to court or even charged with my crime United States of America: No Substitute for habeas corpus: Six years without judicial review in Guantánamo - Amnesty International Reading Amnesty International's reports one would think the US used the Geneva Convention as toilette paper. My favorite line though

George W. Bush, President of the United States of America
No, of course. We don’t torture people in America. And people who make that claim just don’t know anything about our country

I wonder how many times he had to practice in the mirror before he was able to say that with a straight face?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok. For the two people who voted that they would rather be US soldiers captured by Al Qaeda, could you explain your votes?

Why would you rather be executed?

I voted that I'd rather be an American soldier captured by Al Qaeda, because I would never want to be a member of Al Qaeda; I would not want to be a terrorist under any circumstances, even if I died as a result.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would respond that while you may be able to find issues with their care you might object to, their life and limbs are not in danger. There are two distinct levels of treatment here, AQ affords the US no physical or legal protection and in fact simply kills the soldier, the US on the other hand does not put the combatant's life or limb in jeopardy but there are problems with the legal protection.

So the prospect of a lifetime without any freedom at all wouldn't worry you in the slightest?

My point is that what miniscule grievances those in club gitmo have are a joke next to the grievances the surviving relatives of US POW's have...

Arbitrary detention without trial is not a "miniscule grievance". Many people have been released from Gitmo for lack of evidence after years of imprisonment. Many more remain in Gitmo with very questionable justification.

At its core for me, it's a human rights issue: the way we determine the difference between the innocent and the guilty is with a fair trial. In the United States and most countries that have a functioning justice system, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. The only legitimate reason for pre-trial detention is to make sure the accused is actually present for the trial and (if found guilty) sentencing. Holding a person in captivity without trial (outside of a prisoner of war scenario) is only moral as long as it's reasonable to expect a fair trial without delay at the end of it.

Fair enough.

So your post amended would look like this: (I'll respond to the amended form below)

I am curious to know how one can excuse the gruesome murder and complain about legal issues for the others?

Nobody's excusing any gruesome murders. Just because we don't expect any more from terrorists doesn't mean anyone thinks their behaviour is okay. In fact, as has been alluded to here, gruesome murders form a large part of the rationale for rounding them up or killing them on the battlefield.

If that's the moral standard that you want to live by yourself, then you can also expect to be rounded up or killed on a battlefield by the "good guys".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't addressing whether or not the countries had ratified the conventions.

You stated that because of Article 2 and Article 4, the Conventions didn't apply.

Let's look at what Article 2 of Convention III says:

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The United States, Iraq and Afghanistan are all considered "High Contracting Parties". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were both wars between High Contracting Parties, therefore the Convention applies to prisoners taken during the war. The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are both occupations of a High Contracting Party, therefore the Convention applies to prisoners taken in either country since the wars ended (however you define that point).

Article 2 of Convention 3 (Protection of Prisoners of War) matches that of Convention 4 (Protection of Civilian Persons). While some combatants may not be considered "POW"s for the purposes of Convention 3, they would fall under Convention 4 and be afforded the protections it gives.

Convention 4 requires:
- that the laws and judicial system of the occupied country continue to function as much as possible (Art. 64)
- that if the judicial system is disbanded, military courts for civilians must sit in the occupied country (Art. 66)
- that no sentence be carried out without a proper trial, and that the accused be brought to trial as quickly as possible (Art. 71)
- that nationals of countries who are parties to the Convention* be detained in the occupied country where they were captured.

*Every single Gitmo detainee is a national of a party to the Convention, with a very few possible exceptions: three are listed with "West Bank" as their nationality and two with "Palestine". West Bank and Palestine aren't parties to the Convention, but Israel is.

None of these things have been done for the prisoners in Gitmo. Most have not been done for many "terror" detainees in other American prisons.

:areyoucra No. I didn't imply anything, I said exactly what meant, they could have been killed if encountered on the battle field.


That they were already getting better treatment than needed.... they could have been killed on the battlefield.

Yes... the operative words being "on the battlefield". Off the battlefield, when your prisoner has been subdued and is no longer an immediate threat to your life, what you could have done to them in combat doesn't matter any more.

 

[Comprehend]

I don't think you should be saying torture wouldn't bother you until you've actually been tortured.

What torture do you think is being done?

But once again, we're supposed to be the good guys. We're supposed to be better than terrorists. We're supposed to be better than this.

that would be the double standard I was talking about.

That would be curious if anyone was actually excusing the murders. Nobody is, though.

That is what happens when everyone cries about what the US does but doesn't make a sound about the treatment of US soldiers. For an example, see your statement about "we are supposed to be better than the terrorists" as a creative way to excuse the murder of US troops.

 

[Comprehend]

Well that is very good of you! It is probably a good idea.

I fully agree that soliders captured by Al Qaeda are far far worse off than vice versa.

I feel that the best place to defend justice is a high vantage point. I don't want my side to be simply the better of two evils (even if it is much much better). I expect moral consistency and I feel that our cause is hurt if we stoop even slightly. Why? Well because I want to support America and not Al Qaeda but I don't want to support a country who would do such things. There is no excuse for it.

I agree that we shouldn't be happy with something we feel is wrong but consider it this way.

Lets say there are 100 children in a room and you are watching them. Most of the kids are playing nice together, but a few are not, over in one corner a kid is being hit and kicked by a number of kids, in another area a kid is being teased and called names. While you obviously will object to both, which is the most urgent to end? If you were to write a paper about which was the most grevious and most needed to be addressed, which would you talk about?

If you feel the need to address both, what would be wrong with an 80/20 split? If one is going to complain about the treatment of prisoners in this war, wouldn't it make sense to spend the vast majority of the time working on the one where the prisoners end up with their heads separated from their bodies and less time on the one where some prisoners fight to stay in detainment and their biggest common complaint is legal trouble?

 

[Comprehend]

The reason I'd rather be a US soldier being held captive by the locals is that at least my head gets cut off in a couple of weeks, the other way is to go through the never ending psychological torture United States of America: "We don't torture people in America" - Amnesty International and max prison level detainment with out having ever been to court or even charged with my crime United States of America: No Substitute for habeas corpus: Six years without judicial review in Guantánamo - Amnesty International Reading Amnesty International's reports one would think the US used the Geneva Convention as toilette paper. My favorite line though
I wonder how many times he had to practice in the mirror before he was able to say that with a straight face?

:biglaugh:


According to your "thinking" then, the US should immediately begin to behead all of the detainees in order to give them better treatment. LOL

Awesome....

I hope to hear you fighting for the beheading of all detainees.

 

[Comprehend]

I voted that I'd rather be an American soldier captured by Al Qaeda, because I would never want to be a member of Al Qaeda; I would not want to be a terrorist under any circumstances, even if I died as a result.

you missed the point of the question. (I am detecting a trend here).:cover:

The poll was only asking about the treatment you would prefer.

Are you saying you would rather be beheaded than spending time at club gitmo?

 

[lamplighter]

:biglaugh:


According to your "thinking" then, the US should immediately begin to behead all of the detainees in order to give them better treatment. LOL

Awesome....

I hope to hear you fighting for the beheading of all detainees.

I like the way you twisted that around, you must be republican I take it? I was stating that imminent death be preferable to the treated of the detainees at Guantanamo, both are horrible but I'm just picking the fate that isn't the worst.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you missed the point of the question. (I am detecting a trend here).:cover:

Or perhaps your intended point wasn't immediately obvious from your question.

The poll was only asking about the treatment you would prefer.

It did? Let's look at it:

Which would you rather be?

- A U.S. Soldier captured by Al Qaeda.
- An Al Qaeda combatant captured by the U.S.

Please tell me how a person could be an Al Qaeda combatant captured by the US without being an Al Qaeda combatant.

Are you saying you would rather be beheaded than spending time at club gitmo?

No, I'm saying that I wouldn't kill innocent people to avoid being beheaded myself.

 

[Comprehend]

You stated that because of Article 2 and Article 4, the Conventions didn't apply.

Let's look at what Article 2 of Convention III says:



The United States, Iraq and Afghanistan are all considered "High Contracting Parties". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were both wars between High Contracting Parties, therefore the Convention applies to prisoners taken during the war. The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are both occupations of a High Contracting Party, therefore the Convention applies to prisoners taken in either country since the wars ended (however you define that point).

Article 2 of Convention 3 (Protection of Prisoners of War) matches that of Convention 4 (Protection of Civilian Persons). While some combatants may not be considered "POW"s for the purposes of Convention 3, they would fall under Convention 4 and be afforded the protections it gives.

Iraq and Afganistan are not parties to the war.
Al Qaeda is not a signitory to the convention.
Al Qaeda has not accepted and applied the provisions of the treaty.

Convention 4 requires:
- that the laws and judicial system of the occupied country continue to function as much as possible (Art. 64)
- that if the judicial system is disbanded, military courts for civilians must sit in the occupied country (Art. 66)
- that no sentence be carried out without a proper trial, and that the accused be brought to trial as quickly as possible (Art. 71)
- that nationals of countries who are parties to the Convention* be detained in the occupied country where they were captured.

*Every single Gitmo detainee is a national of a party to the Convention, with a very few possible exceptions: three are listed with "West Bank" as their nationality and two with "Palestine". West Bank and Palestine aren't parties to the Convention, but Israel is.

None of these things have been done for the prisoners in Gitmo. Most have not been done for many "terror" detainees in other American prisons.

That's nice but convention IV applies to civilians not to enemy combatants....

Moving on.

You forgot to address my other example:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Does that sound like it describes Al Qaeda? we could go over the rest of Article 4 if you like but not in this thread. As I have mentioned once before, this is off topic. If you want to start a thread discussing this topic, be my guest.

Yes... the operative words being "on the battlefield". Off the battlefield, when your prisoner has been subdued and is no longer an immediate threat to your life, what you could have done to them in combat doesn't matter any more.

Meaning you understand now? That is a strange way of saying you didn't understand what I said.

 

[Comprehend]

I like the way you twisted that around, you must be republican I take it?

Nope.

I was stating that imminent death be preferable to the treated of the detainees at Guantanamo, both are horrible but I'm just picking the fate that isn't the worst.

Right, meaning that you believe beheading would improve the conditions for those at Gitmo.

:biglaugh:

Can't wait to see your protest signs...

 

[Comprehend]

Or perhaps your intended point wasn't immediately obvious from your question.


It did? Let's look at it:



Please tell me how a person could be an Al Qaeda combatant captured by the US without being an Al Qaeda combatant.


No, I'm saying that I wouldn't kill innocent people to avoid being beheaded myself.

all righty then. I'll just leave that alone.

 

[lamplighter]

Yeah if I was stuck gitmo death would be preferable but neither option is some sort of humanitarian effort and both problems should be eliminated, fair trial and proper detainment at gitmo and actual trials with no death penalty for people who don't happen to be a very specific sect of muslim on the other. I don't condone the actions of either and I'm failing to see how the concept of both parties being wrong is so hard for you to understand.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

A lot of people have been complaining about how we (the United States) treat our detainees but I never hear them complain about how ours are treated.

Is that because there are no U.S. POW's in this war? Why aren't there any? Because they are all murdered when they are captured. What does this say about where the prisoner problem exists?

Why don't the people who complain about how we treat our prisoners complain more about how ours are treated?

Isn't captivity with 3 meals a day, a koran and exercise a tad better than summary execution in often gruesome ways? Why the double standard?

What does this say about those who choose to complain about the detainees while being silent about the treatment US troops?

Good God. That sounds like being asked which side of the face you would prefer to get shot. I may have to defer on this one...