Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

(Brian Allardice) wrote:

:But also be granted full protection as soon as possible "consistent with the
:security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." Vague, to be
:sure... Note also a trial not merely fair but "regular" (whatever that may be
:as well - but it doesn't sound like a special tribunal to me)

So the Nuremberg trials were illegal?

:The US has started releasing men from Gitmo, admitting that
:they had been caught up in the dragnet by mistake, so there is some of
:this going on; note also that I don't believe they say that the
:tribunal (for deciding whether they meet GC III 4.2) must be an open
:one. And you don't need a tribunal to declare someone not covered by
:III or IV; you only need the tribunal in cases where there is doubt.
:
:I would be very wary of that reading... so should all military men...

I always find this to be most peculiar reasoning. It essentially
amounts to "Don't ever follow the rules of the Conventions to declare
someone to NOT be a POW, since then someone might ignore the
Conventions and declare your POWs to not be POWs".

You know, there's a simple answer in that case. If legitimate
combatants are declared as unlawful combatants and then treated badly
(tortured, executed, etc.), we go in and kick the ass of the folks who
do it, but them on trial, and hang them for war crimes.

Note that despite all the 'cautionary tales' from folks who don't like
our holding these people, we are NOT engaging in any of those things I
mention above (which always seem to figure in the 'cautionary tales'
to 'warn' us).

:I don't
:think the way the men in the pens are treated would be any different
:
:well, they wouldn't be in pens, for a start...

Free range terrorists?

:if the US were to announce that they were to be held under the GC's,
:because so many men wouldn't qualify as POW's, not meeting the
:requirements of GC (III) 4.2 (which are fairly strict, requiring a
:chain-of-command and a mark recoginzable at a distance (distinct from
:merely carrying a gun)). The AQ men almost certainly wouldn't, the
:Taliban men might, I don't know enough about how the Taliban operated
:to know.
:
:The Taliban would seem to fall very clearly under 4.A.1 - hence covered.

Why?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer