Camp X-Ray - The Final Solution?

[Faceman]

yeah! commando raid Guantanamo Bay and prepare to have your whole country bombed to the ground, TERRORIST!

[the new JR Jansen]

Maybe someone can explain this to me. Are military bases regarded in the same manner as embassies ? An embassy is part of that nation. No embassy is located in that embassies nation but is considered a part of it. If military bases aren't considered like that, then the cubans could come in and have their own justice implemented there because it is on their soil. If they are, then the prisoners their fall under the US law and should be tried accordingly.

[ 06-13-2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: the new JR Jansen ]

[Ronn_Bman]

I think military bases are considered the sovereign soil of a nation just as embassies are.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I think military bases are considered the sovereign soil of a nation just as embassies are.

OK, if that is the case, then those prisoners fall under the US law, dont they ?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Mouse: "Arrest him!" "For what?" asked England's Lord High Chancellor, Sir Thomas More. "He's dangerous!" said More's wife. William Roper, Thomas More's son-in-law chimed in, "For all we know he's a spy!" to which his daughter added, "Father, that man's bad!" Sir Thomas replied, "There's no law against that!" "There is God's law!" countered the impetuous Roper. "Then let God arrest him!" More's wife saw the critical opportunity fading, "While you talk he's gone!" More looked at his distraught wife. "And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law! This was too much for the son-in-law, who mounted a second challenge: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!" "Yes!" asserted Sir Thomas. "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

Great post. Exactly the problem. We can never let the government hold ANYONE indefinately without a trial. Just because today they do it to evil men does not mean tomorrow they won't do it to good men.

IF they didn't want to treat prisoners as prisoners of war they shouldn't have packaged and sold the "War on Terror" as a WAR. They called it WAR because that allows certain perk -- such as running your tanks all over the map chasing a few unwashed radicals. But, those perks also come with responsibilities. Those they want to shirk.

Sorry, Bushie-boy, but there is only so long you can have your cake and eat it too.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: Maybe someone can explain this to me. Are military bases regarded in the same manner as embassies ? An embassy is part of that nation. No embassy is located in that embassies nation but is considered a part of it. If military bases aren't considered like that, then the cubans could come in and have their own justice implemented there because it is on their soil. If they are, then the prisoners their fall under the US law and should be tried accordingly.

This is a common misunderstanding. Embassies are not "soil" of the inhabiting nation. Period.

And, the Cubans, like Donut, are scared of us, too. Castro came a hair's breadth from losing that country, and it was only a JFK betrayal of Cubans that saved him. Which is why Miami will never, ever, ever, ever vote Democratic.

[ 06-13-2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Donut, you'll have to explain the symantics problem to those who wrote the Geneva Convention, which sets out very specific qualification rules for POWs. Under the rules, those held at Camp X-Ray are not POWs. Of course, this point has been argued back and forth, but one thing that is completely clear under the GC is that just because there is a war that does not make everyone captured a POW.

Where'd you get this info? Which of the Geneva Conventions are you referring to? I am not intimately familiar with them, having not studied them for several years. Any links or other info is appreciated.

P.S. I have the texts at home if you just want to cite the section or area of the treaty.

[ 06-13-2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Ronn_Bman]

TL, as to whether or not the prisoners at Camp X-Ray qualify as POWs under the GC, I think Article 4 Section 2, especially as backed up by Section 6, cover the argument against them.

Now regarding my statement that not all prisoners taken during a conflict/war are POWs per the GC, Article 4 Section A actually begins the process of setting up the qualifications for being considered POWs "in the sense of the present Convention", so it stands to reason that those who don't qualify, in that sense, are not POWs. [img]smile.gif[/img]


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[ 06-13-2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Timber Loftis]

I'd have to see the definition of "party" under that part (since it is capitalized, it's a defined term), but I think # 1 applies. If you don't want Al Queda members and Taliban to be a "party to the conflict" then don't declare a war on terror.

I also think # 3 would arguably apply, and one could even argue that the entity you "owe allegience to" under # 3 could in fact be Allah.

[Ronn_Bman]

Well, I'm more than happy to agree that waaaaaaaaaaay too many things in the GC can go both ways. Ryanamor and I had this debate at length at the beginning of the internments at X-Ray and finally agreed that the GC can actually be used to support both arguments.