A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 24th 03, 09:38 AM
Rob van Riel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"TinCanMan" wrote in message ...
They are combatants, having
been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be detained
in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You don't
get to decide when that is, the detaining power does.


In other words, you're essentially talking about POWs. POWs have
rights, that are being denied those held at GITMO. Now, I realise that
the US government has decided they have found a legal loophole that
allows them to deny these people POW status, but no lawyer alive can
change the thruth. It is not relevant that many of these people
weren't wearing any kind of uniform when captured, as uniforms were
not in use in Afganistan. Inconvenient to our Western criteria, but
that is the way of that country.

If you don't like it, complain to your
elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.


I don't, and I don't have to, as they already agree with me.
Unfortunately, the US government couldn't care less about that.

Rob
  #12  
Old July 24th 03, 09:43 AM
Rob van Riel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . ..
You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
them out of hand?


I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same
respect for the principles of international law most of the past
century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Rob
  #13  
Old July 24th 03, 10:17 AM
Brian Allardice
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...

Geneva (IV)-1949


Art. 5 ....


...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.
/end quote

They must be "treated with humanity" but from my reading it seems to
be that *if* you try them, the trials must be fair. I don't see any
requirement that they be tried. Indeed, they specifically make
reference to holding someone based on on suspicion and then they are
"regarded as having forfeited rights of communication". Fairly broad
powers there, enshrined under Geneva-IV (1949), from my readings it in
fact seems to justify what's going on at Gitmo completely (if we
assume that the men at Gitmo don't qualify for protection under either
GC III or GC IV).


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) Of course G-IV
applies to "Civilian Persons" and would not apply to the Taliban forces; as to
AQ see below.

Another catch is that we don't really know what is going on at Guantanamo, but
if what is going on in Afghanistan ('death by blunt force trauma' as it was
charmingly put) and in Iraq as reported today by Amnesty, one might reasonably
await further data before justifying anything...

That brings up Geneva III-1949, 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."


Again, no right to a trial that I can see, only a "competant
tribunal".


But that is only to determine their status under Article 4, not a trial for war
crimes. As you note, POW's do not generally face trial, they are merely
interned until the end of hostilities

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...

The US seems to be loudly protesting that the men aren't entitled to
protection under the GC's, but in all actuality most of the AQ men
wouldn't get any protection anyway (Geneva III (1949) Article 4
section 2 would be the standards that they would have to meet, and
from my knowledge of AQ very few of them would meet them).


I would be inclined to agree but I don't know enough about how AQ operated in
Afghanistan to be sure. Even if 4.A.2 fails 4.A.6 might succeed. Enough to
create a doubt, I would think.

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...

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.

Despite all the talk of tribunals &c GC III seems to deal only with those acts
committed while in captivity, except for

"85: Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts
committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the
present Convention."

Now how to interpret that one....?

Cheers,
dba





Now, giving the British citizens to Britain would be the smart move to
help Tony Blair... it seems so obvious that I don't really know why
they aren't.

Chris Manteuffel


  #14  
Old July 24th 03, 02:25 PM
TinCanMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Nicholls" wrote in message
...

"TinCanMan" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:

Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad,

and
that wont always land you in paradise.

Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
without charge or representation, or apology come to that.

This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?

Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.


Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks

enjoying
the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,

having
been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be

detained
in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You

don't
get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time

they
will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm

sure
you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in

the
issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill

hostillities
are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on

USENET
is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to

your
elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.

If they are POW's then they should be covered by the various Geneva
Conventions - but the US has explicitly denied them the rights under those
Conventions.

David


They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's


  #15  
Old July 24th 03, 03:09 PM
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Rob van Riel) wrote:

:Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . ..
:
: You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
: them out of hand?
:
:I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
:alone shoot anyone over there.

Fortunately, you aren't an arbiter of international law, since you
seem to not understand it very well. Or do you not think that the
attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center constitute
sufficient cassus belli? If they don't, what would?

:The US government has shown the same
:respect for the principles of international law most of the past
:century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Well, that sounds like your mind is firmly made up and you decline to
be bothered by facts. Vote for Gore, did you?

One small fact is that we came in on the side of the last recognized
government of the place. You can count the nations who recognized the
Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan on your thumbs, and
Pakistan withdrew their recognition.

Another small fact is that we went in after a group who had 'declared
war' on us first, who were taking actions that essentially constituted
war crimes against us, and whom the folks controlling the territory
they were in refused to do anything about. Sounds like legitimate
cause for war to me, even if the Taliban HAD been the legal government
of Afghanistan.

:Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
:the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Both legal AND a good idea.

--
"Now this is the Law of the Jungle --
as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper,
but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk
the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack."

-- "The Law of the Jungle", Rudyard Kipling
  #16  
Old July 24th 03, 03:18 PM
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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
  #17  
Old July 24th 03, 06:30 PM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in

message . ..
You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
them out of hand?


I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same
respect for the principles of international law most of the past
century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Rob


Rob,

You are incorrect, once the Twin towers came down the US was at war and as
such has the right to self defense.
We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
who gave them aid and comfort.

Nuff said

Jim


  #18  
Old July 24th 03, 07:56 PM
Jim Watt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's


In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
purports to support it says:

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

You can find the rest at
http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
  #19  
Old July 24th 03, 08:00 PM
Jim Watt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
who gave them aid and comfort.


I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
their country and buildings.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
  #20  
Old July 24th 03, 08:38 PM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and

those
who gave them aid and comfort.


I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
their country and buildings.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com


Unfortunatly they had the wrong leader...
I doubt soviets like Stalin, Some Germans I understand disliked the
Bavarian corpural too.
and I doubt they enjoyed Sherman tanks crossing the rhine or B17 flying over
Berlin.

War sucks.

Jim




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? suckthis.com Naval Aviation 12 August 7th 03 06:56 AM
YANK CHILD ABUSERS TMOliver Naval Aviation 19 July 24th 03 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.