How does the US "go around" the GenevaConvention precepts in our handling of the "long time, fully

Question

interigated" detainees at Guantanamo Cuba?

Does their life end there without any judicial proceedings?

Some of them were just at "the wrong place, at the wrong time", and accused by someone just wanting to get "reward money" that we offered for Taliban suspects.

Does this not become a "black mark" on America's' code of honor as seen from other countries of the world?

And is this not why, (partially at least), why Islam is so angry with such US policy of detaining forevever those who haven't had a fair trial?

Are there any new answers after the Supreme Court ruling of June 29th?

Answer 1

hey charly---you're a wanker. get bent.

you remind me of the girl that crawled out of the well in the movie "The Ring". that had to be about the creepiest scene in the whole movie---almost. when she crawled OUT of the TV set to get the last victim---man, that messed me up.

you're just like her--you're bending and contorting and jerking in every shape imaginable to create some sort of 'victim' status to the as$hats at Guantanamo.

if you're 'bored' and 'need something to do' why not try to assign the same level of compassion to the real victims, the folks who died on 9-11?

what a loser.

Answer 2

Hey, it's not just treaties -- the US can apparently ignore its own 6th Amendment. It's not like the Supreme Court has chimed in (more than twice) and said that detainees are entitled to 6th Amendment protections or anything. And because of the Superiority clause, if the Commander-in Sheik can ignore the US constitution at will, surely he can ignore any lesser laws.

And it's not really hypocrisy for the use to call it a War on Terror, and say detainees are "enemy combatants" but not entitled to the rights of any other combatants. After all, legal terminology is really consistent and just because a law says something doesn't mean we have to follow it, right?

We live in a society where people can be guilty until proven innocent. Our administration has said so. And because they are never wrong, we simply have to trust that everything they do is above reproach (and above the law, since the Commander-in-Sheik won't let the courts review his orders).

Answer 3

The Geneva convention only applies to "lawful" combatants, which is basically limited to uniformed military personel. Anyone participating in armed conflict without a uniform, anyone committing espionage, sabotage, or terroristic attacks or operations is an "unlawful" combatant under the Law of War. "Unlawful" combatants are not afforded Geneva Convention protection. In the past, virtually all unlawful combatants were summarily executed if captured. In Ex Parte Quirin, a Supreme Court decision during World War II, the Court held that subjecting 4 captured German saboteurs to a military tribunal and then executing them was a valid excercise of Executive authority. One of the saboteurs was a U.S. citizen, and that was held to be lawful.

Recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay facilities had to be given some process and an opportunity to convince a military tribunal of their innocence and could not be held indefinitely. The Court did not say that these prisoners should be afforded any other legal process. Still, the prison in Guantanamo Bay represents a much more lenient treatment of unlawful enemy combatants than was ever used in the past.

The Guantanamo prison is undoubtedly a "black eye" for the U.S. because people are easily manipulated when they are ignorant, tending to believe the first thing they hear on any given subject. The enemies of the United States will certainly say our detention of unlawful combatants is illegal and evil, even when their own governments would have already killed every detainee we currently imprison.

I remember 20 or 25 years ago, the only people who talked about Israel's "illegal" occupation of the West Bank were crazy, violent, terrorists. People who hijacked airplanes and cruiseliners and killed innocent people. Israel captured that land in a war where they were forced to defend themselves from attack by multiple Arab countries. Never before has occupying land captured in a defensive war considered "illegal."

The crazies kept right on spouting off about the "illegal occupation" of the West Bank while the rest of the world shook their heads. Time passed. They kept talking about the "illegal occupation" while periodically killing people for media attention. Then people forgot that no one used to consider the occupation illegal. Next thing you know, people started believing the crazy case that somehow Israel wrongly captured and held that land. In the last 5 years or more, I've heard people at the U.N. criticizing the "illegal occupation" of the West Bank. I think most people even believe the case for the "illegal occupation" now, and all the terrorists had to do was stick to their talking points and get media attention with violence.

Answer 4

Well, I may be wrong on this but first of all the Geneva Convention deals only with military personnel. It doesn't cover partisans or terrorists, which are considered criminal.

Also, countries involved with the Convention have to subscribe and abide by it. Unlike Germany and Italy during WWII Japan did not recognize the treaty. This is why soldiers captured by the Japanese were mistreated terribly, starved and executed on the slightest pretext, if any at all.

So under the military guidelines, you can hold suspected participants of criminal/terrorist organizations (such as the Git-Mo guests) for an undetermined period of time.

Don't take this as gospel. This is only my understanding of it and I may be wrong at that.

Answer 5

I will not go into the details of the Geneva conventions, however may I suggest that people refer to Convention III, which regulates the treatment of Prisoners of War and Convention IV concerns the treatment of citizens in times of war especially Article 5 to see that the definition of a POW to correct their information: “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”.

US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales stated actually insisted that Gitmo camp “is consistent" with the Geneva Convention, but he questioned the relevance of the Convention in today's world on one of his visits to Britain – By that, the Conventions should apply to these “detainees”.

Back to your question: How long should these “detainees” be kept without any trial or convictions? If they are guilty of any crime, why not simply convict them and give them the punishment they deserve. Why have some been “detained” and tortured, only to be set free a few years later because they were simply not convicted of anything.

Up to 24 children may have been held up at the U.S. prison at Gitmo , 3 of which are thought to be between 10, 12 and 13 when they arrived. These 3 children were released in Jan. 2004 – what kind of terrorists were these children – better question – what kind of criminals have they become after the ordeal they went through during their childhood imprisonment??

As of August 2003, at least 29 inmates of Camp Delta had attempted suicide. Suicide (taking your own life) is considered a crime in islam, so what did these people go through to make commit such a strong sin?

So how does the US do it - don’t know, but it’s no different that the US response / reaction / double standard stance with regards to Israel – The US has done nothing with regards to Israel’s non compliance to the UN resolutions (65 resolutions during the period from 1955 – 1992) except vetoing 30 UN resoultions aginst Israel from Sept. 1972 – may 1990 and bombed other nations who did comply with the UN resoltutions!

Why Islam is so angry with the US? Actually it’s not just Islamic nations - it Arab nations, (which include Muslims, Christians and Jews contrary to the belief & understanding of many people) and many other nations around the world (including American citizens) who protested against these wars and are very angry with the current status. So long as US (actually Israel) is the one entitled to “defend” itself , then there will be anger at the injustice.

I will not get into the “evidence” that Osama or fanatic Muslims were responsible for 9/11, because that would result in a lot of abusive language from many against me, though it has been nagging at me that bit of a cliché that the whole incident that led to these wars happened on 9 1 1 - “ a cry for help” resulting in Shock and Awe!

Grant D: I do recommend you check this out: www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm
www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/skabbani.htm - Good reading

Answer 6

Well, since the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:

You can't.

The court ruled that at least part of the Geneva Convention specifically applies to an enemy like Al Qaeda, which hasn't signed the Convention. It requires a trial by "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civlilized peoples."

Answer 7

These are not soilders we are dealing with they are terrorists, big difference. Why don't you ask questions like this when peoples are dragging our dead soilders through the streets or chopping off their heads.
We should just take them back and hand them over to the families of the people they have murdered. That would be justice.

Answer 8

You are confusing Geneva convention ( which of course Iraq is not a signed member of to my understanding) and US constititual rights to a trial.

These are prisoners of war, not people arrested, they do not have rights to court procedings, merley rights to be treated to certain standards but may be held for as long as we are fighting.

So please understand enemies who are captured do not have US rights, they are prisioners and have no rights to trial only to be released once the other side surenders or they beat us.

Answer 9

I think the ACLU should be allowed to represent ALL of the terrorists, oops, I meant "freedom fighters"...we should allow them free access to our civilian courts, and the right to post bond. We know they would surely return for trial...

We should give them the same kind of trial the Nazis received...then take them out and hang them...the same as the Nazis.

Answer 10

Another bleeding heart liberal! Remember 9-11