Lincolnite: Lincoln's Online Community

Easy answer...they are prisoners of war, not criminal defendants.

If you are a POW you are still entitled to a process under intl law/GC. Bottom line, there needs to be a lawful determination to make sure more innocent kids aren’t being kept like dogs in a kennel. If guilty, punish them, if innocent, let them go.

Entitled to certain treatment under international law...yes.  However, this is not what your post indicates (and therefore I assume not what the movie indicates), your post asks, “Why is it that hundreds of people still in detention have yet to be charged? “ There have been a number of visitors to Camp X-Ray and every indication is that they are complying with international law and the Geneva convention, including religiously appropriate meals and calls for prayer over the loudspeakers.  Most of the detainees were enemy combatants during the fighting in Afghanistan.

What? First you say they are POWs, and now you say they are enemy combatants. The whole point of the Tipton Three’s experience is that they were technically neither, but just three poor bastards who ended up getting locked up for 2 years in a legal black hole. You haven’t seen the film. If you do, you may choose to believe that the depictions of their experiences are greatly exaggerated, but even then the mere fact of being held for two years without due process is a gross violation of basic rights.

As far as “every indication is that they are complying with international law and the Geneva convention” goes, come on. That is a simplification, a deliberate neglect of quite a bit of criticism based on witness testimony, and factually incorrect because being imprisoned for years without due process is NOT complying with international law and the GC. 

Look I don’t think anyone doubts that there aren’t a lot of pretty bad guys being held down there. If so, its time to get them to a tribunal where their crimes can be identified and they can be punished suitably once and for all. If prisoners are not guilty, they should be freed.

Yes, first I said they were POW’s and in my second post I said they were enemy combatants because the reality is that they were/are both.  I was referring to their status at two different points in time.  When they were were waging war against the U.S. they were in fact enemy combatants and of course at that time they were not POW’s.  However, after they were captured and detained they were/are POW’s. 

As for your criticism stating that they are in fact not complying with international law and the geneva convention I can only state that such allegations can be flippantly made on such a blog post or in film for that matter.  I must challenge you to provide some evidence of proof. 

As for tribunals, this is simply not consistent with historical treatment of POW’s in times of war.

“I must challenge you to provide some evidence of proof.”

Huh? Read over my last post again. As I said, even if you choose to believe that the prisoners in the film were not mistreated, the very fact that they were detained for so long without a competent trial or tribunal is a violation in itself. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp? Why can’t you understand that? I think you probably can but don’t want to acknowledge it.

And as POWs, as you now concede, they should be afforded the protections of the GC for Treatment of POWs.

But besides all this, let me ask you a more general question. What is your overall point here? Are you arguing that the detainees should be held indefinitely without due process? Until when? Five more years? Ten? Until they die?

I did read your previous post and that is where my call for evidence of mistreatment comes from.  If a movie made by those sympathetic to the point of the detainees is your idea of proof, then go drink some more Kool-Aid.  Let me make it more clear for you.  Give me some objective proof.  The fact that they were detained for so long is not a violation of the Geneva conventions.  During WWII the US as well as other nations help POW’s for longer.  The issue is their status and their humane treatment in accordance with the GC. 

As far as their status as POW’s, I have not conceded that.  I have stated that they are POW’s from the very first post.  As a POW they are entitled to Geneva Convention protections.  However, you call for a tribunal, which is outside of what is called for in the Geneva convention.

My point was simply to point out the inaccuracies in your statement for the sake of fairness and truth.  However, since you have asked me to take a step further (than my original intent) and you were to ask me when I think these POW’s should be released my answer would be when these enemy combatants can be realeased to their home countries (or the countries they claimed to represent) for a fair trial.  For those in Guantanamo, this would mean being released back to Afghanistan, however Afghanistan is currently in a bit of a rebuilding stage and is in the process of developing their legal system.  Once this system has been further developed, release them to be tried.

Oh man now you’re just saying things that are flat out false. Look PP, the GC on POW treatment requires a tribunal for the detained under Article 5. Google that or go to the library or something. So much for your “you call for a tribunal, which is outside of what is called for in the Geneva convention” claim.

“…then go drink some more Kool-Aid.”

Yeah ok whatever. Frankly I am not even sure what you’re point is anymore. At first you seemed to suggest that detainees had no right to due process because they are POWs (which is not true). Now you say that they do have GC protections as POWs, but there is no right to a tribunal in the GC. Yet contrary to your argument, that requirement is clearly stated in art. 5 of the GC for Treatment of POWs. You’re contradicting yourself and frankly I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

I know many democrats and many republicans, but I don’t anyone who things its right to detain people without a credible opportunity for them to prove their innocence. And the notion that the US should get in the business of holding foreign nationals in detention without trial until they can be repatriated to nations after they obtain some post-development status is just a mess not worth getting into.

Well now it seems we’ve resorted to outright deception.  Here is why:

1.  The Geneva convention does mention tribunals in Article Five.  However, to summarize, it states that tribunals are for those POW’s whose status cannot be determined.  You need to refer to Article Four.  Those detained at Camp X-ray fall into one of the six primary categories or two additional categories and therefore a tribunal is not called for. 

See for yourself:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

If you have proof or facts to backup their undetermined status then by all means lay that on the table, but most of those detained were detained fighting in armed conflict in Afghanistan . 

2.  Your statement that I think Prisoners of War are not entitled to Geneva Convention provisions is patently false.  I have never asserted this claim.  As a matter of fact in the first post I refer to them as Prisoners of War (something you don’t do in the original post), a Geneva convention term.  Additionally, in my second post I explicitly state that they are entitled to Geneva Convention provisions.  Due process however is another thing entirely.  Due process is a Constitutional term, which does not apply to detained prisoners of war.  Where do you find this term in the Geneva conventions?  (Let me help you....YOU DON’T)

As for your final paragraph...I’d look at hanging out with a differnt crowd and maybe doing your homework before jumping on the bandwagon based on some movie you’ve seen.

Sorry to break the news to you PP, but Article 5 covers those people in situations where it is unclear whether or not they fall into Article 4. That means people who are not defined under Article 4’s POW status. Read it again. 

“As for your final paragraph...I’d look at hanging out with a differnt crowd and maybe doing your homework before jumping on the bandwagon based on some movie you’ve seen.”

Ouch. You’re so clever.

Mr. T, I will repost a portion of my previous post, so that you may read it more slowly. Add

“However, to summarize, it states that tribunals are for those POW’s whose status cannot be determined.  You need to refer to Article Four.  Those detained at Camp X-ray fall into one of the six primary categories or two additional categories and therefore a tribunal is not called for.”

Mr. T, I will repost a portion of my previous post, so that you may read it more slowly.

“However, to summarize, it states that tribunals are for those POW’s whose status cannot be determined.  You need to refer to Article Four.  Those detained at Camp X-ray fall into one of the six primary categories or two additional categories and therefore a tribunal is not called for.”

It appears that with the lack of real contention, you’ve resorted to restating what I’ve already said. 

The question I want you to answer is...why do you feel they are entitled to a tribunal (i.e. “due process") based on their nonconformance to the categories and criteria stated in Article 4.  What evidence do you have? 

Talk about clever!

No, see your problem is that you are still misinterpreting things (perhaps deliberately). You state that “However, to summarize, it states that tribunals are for those POWs whose status cannot be determined.” That is incorrect. Art 4 defines POWs. Art 5 is not for POWs but for those “persons” where there is doubt if they fall into Art 4. In other words it covers those who may not have Art 4 POW status at all. That’s pretty well established and you would know that if you knew what you were talking about.

I think you have bought into (or want to believe) in an empty tautology that makes no sense at all. You seem to be presenting an argument of 1) there is no “proof” or “evidence” to indicate that gitmo inmates may be held wrongly, and therefore 2) they are not entitled to a process to determine whether or not that are indeed held wrongly in the first palce. Come on, do you really believe that? Your question is based on your misinterpretation of the GC and faulty logic.

Look you’ve made it clear that you obviously aren’t a fan of this movie (even though I am guessing you have not seen it). OK fine. I think that’s kind of silly but its you’re choice. But what I don’t understand is why you persist on pressing this “they don’t deserve a tribunal” argument. Let me ask you this - Do you think innocent people who are detained should remain in prison? Do you think it was wrong or bad that – citing to the Tipton Three’s experience just as an example – a few guys who were basically tourists were actually released from gitmo? Was it wrong to release them? Do you think they should have remained there? I don’t think you do and I think you know it.

I will concede that in my my previous post I used the term POW incorrectly on one occasion.  Here is the occasion, “However, to summarize, it states that tribunals are for those POWs whose status cannot be determined.”

It should read:

“However, to summarize it states that tribunals are for those whose status as detainees cannot be determined.”

The reason this should be reworded is because if their status is not determined then we wouldn’t know if they were POW’s. 

Having said that, your argument is specious because you choose not to confront the main force of my argument. 

You have argued:

1.  My use of the word POW is incorrect.
2.  That I don’t like the movie. 
3.  On a number of occasions you seem to be engaging in emotional appeal as you try to question my compassion.

Here is the argument I ask you to confront and it is not the tautological one you set forth:

1.  If the detainees at Gitmo have been determined to be POW’s (as the administration has stated) then it is clear what provisions are set forth in the Geneva Conventions.  What proof of noncompliance has there been? 

2.  If your argument is that the status of detainees at Gitmo is undetermined or does not fall into one of the Article 4 GC categories, what proof do you have?  (outside of movie, which even if true can hardly be called objective evidence)

“I will concede that in my my previous post I used the term POW incorrectly on one occasion.”

*clap* *clap* Hallelujah. Finally you concede that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Dude you have made a number of very large errors in your posts, both factually and in your understanding of some basic principles.

Here’s another one of your errors (from the “full force of your argument” section apparently): “If the detainees at Gitmo have been determined to be POW’s (as the administration has stated) then it is clear what provisions are set forth in the Geneva Conventions.”

Right off the bat it was pretty clear that you didn’t have a good understanding of the gitmo situation because the administration (I take it you mean the Bush administration) has stated that the detainees are not POWs under the GC, contrary to your claim. Sorry PP.

Where you fail in your legal reasoning is here:

“If your argument is that the status of detainees at Gitmo is undetermined or does not fall into one of the Article 4 GC categories, what proof do you have?  (outside of movie, which even if true can hardly be called objective evidence)”

This question is completely misdirected. The critical question regarding gitmo should be “do the detainees facing indefinite imprisonment have a right to prove their innocence?” I say, yes. On the other hand, you seem to be consistently claiming or arguing that they have no such right to a tribunal since they are POWs - as evident from your very first post. Well for your information PP, it has already been determined by the Supreme Court that the detainees do have a right to challenge indefinite detention in gitmo. And since then the gitmo authorities have already begun convening tribunals, which you apparently believe they don’t deserve, LOL.

Like I mentioned before, I think you do believe its wrong to detain people indefinitely without a right to prove their innocence, but you just can’t admit it now since you’ve dug yourself into such a hole. In fact you seem to partially concede this when you state that the detainees should be released to their home countries for a fair trial, but they can’t be released there since Afghanistan is still developing its legal system. That argument has so many holes in it its frankly quite embarrassing (for you).

And now I see you’ve started “double-posting” too. Dude give it a rest.

Are you boys still duking it out in here? If I had known you two were going to put this much energy into this topic, I would have suggested a point/counter point article of some sort. Oh well, just don’t descend into name-calling.

Mr. Wilson,

You are about one post too late.

A very interesting link related to the issue of tribunals (which are in fact happening):

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html