Camp X-Ray - The Final Solution?

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]Ok, but that still doesn't say how military bases are looked upon. Are they part of a country or not ?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by 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 believe for the X-Ray detainees, that the exceptions stated in Article 4 Section 6 would disqualify them under Section 1 since they weren't standing troops or reserves or militia.

[Ronn_Bman]

JR, US military bases are considered the sovereign soil of the United States of America just as embassies are, and as such, are part of the US.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by 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 believe for the X-Ray detainees, that the exceptions stated in Article 4 Section 6 would disqualify them under Section 1 since they weren't standing troops or reserves or militia. [/QUOTE]Section 6 is not an exception. Items 1 through 6 are each different ways of being a POW. If you can pigeonhole yourself under any 1 of them, you are a POW.

I guess you missed my bit about embassies not being foreign soil. They aren't -- they are the sovereign soil of the country in which the sit. There are simply an agreed set of rules nations abide by and defined by treaties regarding embassies. Why do you think we can kick 'em out?

Military bases are not US soil, either. They are leases -- generally for 99 years at a time.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Section 6 is not an exception. Items 1 through 6 are each different ways of being a POW. If you can pigeonhole yourself under any 1 of them, you are a POW. Military bases are not US soil, either. They are leases -- generally for 99 years at a time.

I see your point, Section 6 contains an exception to itself, and while some could argue that the detainees qualify under Section 1, others can say they would qualify only under Section 6, and that since they didn't carry arms openly or obey the rules of war, they are disqualified? As you've said many times (at least I thought it's what you were saying), those who write the laws don't make the laws, it's those who interpret them who actually make them.

Second point, yes I must have missed that, but aren't bases and embassies treated as our own land even if legally they are not? Of course, they aren't ours in perpetuity (or whatever the term may be), but while we occupy them, aren't they ours, and aren't they treated as if they are actually US soil?

Hong Kong was a lease, wasn't it considered British soil?

[Timber Loftis]

If you mean do we apply US Law at bases, I think, but do not know for sure, that we do. Otherwise, I don't see a distinction between "US soil" and a lease. Speaking generally, lessees tend to treat the tenancy as if they have some ownership.

I've been doing a lot of rethinking about those who interpret the law vs. those who write the law, due to some Robert Bork I've been reading. I guess I would say the proper thing to do would be look to the text itself and its plain meaning first, then to the intent of the lawmakers as evidenced by floor debates, written commentary at the time, etc. (This is actually basically the Supreme Court's rules for statutory interpretation, but recently "public policy" considerations which are intended to come MUCH further down the list, creep up on the list in importance -- different rant).

That said, I looked at the text, which I do not recall analyzing before, and gave you what to me it clearly says. Seeing no need, I did not move beyond that. But, if we were to do so, we would look to the materials from the drafting of the convention, including previous drafts.

I will note that it's a far stretch to call the Taliban civilians. Much further than calling Al Queda a formal armed force.

[ 06-13-2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

I was wrong, as of 5-28-03, 27 different suicide attempts by 18 different detainees, none have suceeded yet. Still stinks.