Ok, I'll start the thread....

[Bogotron]

If so shouldn't the persons apprehended be turned over to their own government in question for trial?

They attacked us. It happened on our soil, so I believe that, even in international law, the US has the right to prosecute. Not sure on that, but it wouldn't make sense that their country of origin would be the ones allowed to reprimand them.

True. But is a country allowed to go in with military forces and retrieve the persons in question? Don't you automatically go to war with such a country when the rules use their military to oppose your forces? And wouldn't then Al-Qaida fighters along with the Taliban become militia in said country since they're defending it (by defending themselves)? I don't know the answers to this one, I'm just asking. And yes, I've been know as a nitpicker.

Under US law a person is innocent until proven guilty (granted, Al-Qaida and other prisoners from the Afghanistan conflict can easily be said to be resisting arrest), and also permitted legal council. From what I've read some of the prisoners haven't even been formally indicted yet. How long can you be kept in containment without being formally charged with a crime in the US?

Or an international tribunal?

Perhaps, but no one has done it. It's been quite some time now and I haven't heard of anyone else wanting that burden. Sure, there's been an outcry for how they've been treated, but has anyone offered to get this tribunal rolling? No, they are leaving it to us. You don't want to get involved, then you can't complain about how it's being done.

Ehrm.... I seem to remember an international war-crimes tribunal that the US refuses to ratify, mainly since it would allow the tribunal to prosecute American nationals if they should be accused of war crimes. Wouldn't this be a possible court for this?

And I believe that there may be some sort of precedence (sp?). I found a link to issues conserning the PLO and the Geneva Convention. However, it says I am not authorized to view the document! Not sure who IS authorized, but if anyone can get in and read it, let me know what it says!

Long url

Not much really. And it's pretty far from an objective page. Has a couple of potential good links, but I'm not authorized to view those documents.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect

What does that mean? "In any important respect?" Who draws that line? If this is supposed to be the definitive laws set for handling POWs, you would think that they would have specified which laws were "important" and which ones didn't have to be followed so carefully!

One would think they would. Matters such as this need a very specific wording so as not to be ambigous (which is the fine point all lawyers base their livelyhood on). I'm not really sure who makes sure the Geneva convention is followed either. It seems more like a gentlemans agreement, and if someone is caught breaking it they will simply say "Sorry old chap. Got a bit carried away there. I'll get back to my tea and biscuits now"

But the Convention is pretty vague at times. The world has changed so much since this was written. It's time we get together and write a new one, or ammend the old, to include the new horrors that face us today.

Very true, but without a true world tribunal there is very little hope that a new "gentlemans agreement" will be better off than the last one. At least IMO.

And the Geneva convention is only 50-some years old. There are a lot of other documents out there that govern nations which are much older, and much more out of tuoch with the world we live in today. There is always a lot of work to do, and not enough good men (and women) to do it.

 

[handbrake2]

The POW's really don't deserve to be treated that way.
If they were Illegal Battlefield Combatants on the other hand ...

 

[MrsSkywalker]

Very true, but without a true world tribunal there is very little hope that a new "gentlemans agreement" will be better off than the last one. At least IMO.

And the Geneva convention is only 50-some years old. There are a lot of other documents out there that govern nations which are much older, and much more out of tuoch with the world we live in today.

How true! However, many of those documents, like the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. are regularly amended when new situations have no precedent.

I know. We'll round up a bunch of representatives and FORCE them to make a new Convention

 

[Sxotty]

Actually, the Geneva convention protects civilians and non-combatant military personell. Military personell engaged in military actions are not covered.

So, if they were not military personell they are/were Afghani citizens (the Genevan convention does not recognise the term "terrorist"). Was the US engaged in a police action against civilians in another country? If so shouldn't the persons apprehended be turned over to their own government in question for trial? Or an international tribunal?


At the risk of being an armchair lawyer specializing in international law:

Article 3 states:
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: [lots of stuff that is prohibited]"

In other words, as soon as they are captured (read: not taking part in the hostilities) they fall under the Geneva convention. I can't read any "unless they're terrorists" clause in there....


Also, I don't know if "terrorist" falls in under anything in article 4, but unless there has been a presedence in such a matter it's fairly useless to automatically lump everyone in the "terrorist" box. Anyone have a link to such an amendment? Would be very handy.

Let me quickly explain something to you. The reason the Geneva convention talks about uniformed personel, is to protect Civillians, whe Iraqi's dress up as Civillians and attack US forces, it endangers real civillians, that is why the uniform part is mentioned, if they are unwilling to wear their uniforms, and use the civillians as cover it is more like spies who are not covered by the stated rules above.

 

[Heathen]

From what I've read some of the prisoners haven't even been formally indicted yet. How long can you be kept in containment without being formally charged with a crime in the US?

IIRC as their not on mainland US soil and in a military facility standard leagl protections no longer apply.

 

[kyleb]

heck, even if they were on US soil, the patriot act made chagreing them with a crime unnecessary anyway.

 

[Bogotron]

Let me quickly explain something to you. The reason the Geneva convention talks about uniformed personel, is to protect Civillians, whe Iraqi's dress up as Civillians and attack US forces, it endangers real civillians, that is why the uniform part is mentioned, if they are unwilling to wear their uniforms, and use the civillians as cover it is more like spies who are not covered by the stated rules above.

I agree. The Geneva convention seems to assume that military forces and militia will always display markings visible over a (significant) distance (very gentleman-like). Ironically the hallmark of military personell today is either the parade uniform (you don't go to war in that), or their camo outfits (with a little dinky flag on the shoulder). Requiring armed forces to carry clearly visible and distinct markings seems like something the entire world has figured out might look good on paper but is fairly stupid in real life (ofcource "distinct" being fairly vague and open for debate). The problem remains with discerning civilians and non-combatants from "legal targets". Personally I don't know how this would be done effectively in guerilla(sp?) warfare. Waiting to see if they shoot at you is hardly an option.