Treatment of prisoners (yep, those ones...)

[Galadria1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


I am assuming you speak from a position of absolute authority after having met each and everyone one of the prisoners and analysed their personalities. No one would possibly make a sweeping statement like that if they hadn't would they...

---

Uh, Barry, I thought that IMHO meant In My Humble Opinion. Believe me, if I was in absolute authority, they wouldn't be in Cuba.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Galadria1 ]

[Barry the Sprout]

What I took issue with was that you had an opinion obviously not based on fact but on media coverage and emotion. Sorry if my reply seemed like flaming but I personally have a big problem with calling any group of people "mad animals".

[Tarox]

As this is a very american website one has to be careful what we the rest of the world say about you lot.

No matter how evil these people may or may not be they should be treated as we expect our prisioners to be treated.
The outrage we the western world cause when people are mistreated in the east is huge.
Very much a case of one rule for the west and one for the rest of the world.

Yes I can fully understand how people want to see them suffer for how they believe in killing so many innocents but are we not meant to be the Great Civilised Western World? By mistreating them we are just bringing ourselves down.

I'm sure no-one out of the USA is surprised at all by how they are treated, I am very sure there is a lot more that goes on that civilians would not like to hear about.

Our prisioners(NATO) that have been caught in conflicts over the years have been mistreated and all countries have condemned it, but here is the great USA doing the same thing except they are trying to convince everyone its ok.....

[Gray Mage]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


1.) Are you absolutely sure that was their objective? I seem to remember something about Palestine being in there, and Saudi Arabia. But you never know, they could be saying that to cover up the truth.

2.) Over here the media covered it strongly for about 2 days and now it has sunk back under the waves of stories about Prince Harry. I don't know where you are but I would love a media that persistant.

3.) Yep that was a human rights infringment. So are we saying that all people who commit human rights abuses are now open to have the same done to them? Because then we can take the Marines in Guatanamo and handcuff them to aeroplanes in flight (totally illegal and a little bit dangerous when you think about it), or leave them in 8ft
cages with no shade in Cuba, or put hoods over their heads needlessly to disorientate them.

4.) I am arguing for at least the bare minimum standard of treatment that the Geneva convention requires. Not 5 bedroom mansions. Don't know where you got that from to be honest.

Fable - I am sorry if I seemed to be attacking americans. I want a debate on this issue as I disagree with what is being done, I don't want to attack the american people. We had a lot of this kind of discussion in the war forum, its sad when it goes that way.

---

1. Yes, I believe that there main objective is to kill americans. I believe that they are taught by Osama that Americans are devils, and they will go straight to Allah if they kill us.

2.I think Cerek is talking about the media coverage of the prisoners, not the war in general. It seems to me that the emphasis has been on what they see, thay are not talking about the 3 meals, medical care beds. They are focusing on the pictures of the prisoners.

3. The fact with the cages is that these are temporary, while proper quarters are being constructed. I think that it is safer for these people to be in Cuba, then in Afganastan.

This really is a very hard topic to be objective on. Especially working a few blocks from where this all happened.

[KHaN]

After reading alot of the posts here I must say that IMHO everyone seems to be acting very civil towards eachother GJ. I know everyone has heard this before but I just have to say it. It doesn't matter if they are POW's, terrorists or the spawn of demons (well the last one I'm kinda exaggerating on) we as civilized beings should NEVER lower ourselves to their level. Sometimes good treatment and a clean and healthy living space will open mouths alot faster then a red hot poker. I think that SOME (not all) will change their minds and hearts if they see that we are NOT the horrible creatures that we were made out to be by their fanatic brainwashers.

What blows my mind are the people like Walker or Timothy Mc Veigh. They IMHO have no excuse whatsoever.

[Redblueflare]

Alright it's my turn. As one of the Guantanomo residents I think I have some say in this.

1. Several of the terrorists have threatened to kill as many Americans as possible before they leave Guantanomo. I'm not saying all of them, but still you know some are just as blood thirsty as those who were involved in September 11th.

2. The prisoners aren't being mistreated at all. They get three meals a day, free medical care, (Lots of free medical care.) there is a sign telling them where to pray to Mecca, and there is even going to be air-conditioning. OF ALL THINGS AIR CONDITIONING! Oh and marines have to go through 11 steps before they are allowed to open fire. They are not being treated as *animals* in the least.

3. Camp X-ray was not meant to be a permanet facility. They are building another *inside* facility as we speak. As to where it is, I have no idea. (Please not near Windmill Beach, please not near windmill beach...)

4. Cuba was picked as a site, becuase it is isolated, (Making a ground attack impossible. Enemies would have to come from sea or air.)
and the presss could be kept out. (Although not very well obviously.) Escaping the judicial system of America was not the only reason. It wouldn't have to be. The detainees are going to go through military tribunals. They wouldn't have the chance to appeal to another court anyhow.

[Ryanamur]

IMO, only a small portion of the terrorists are not prisonners of war and the US are not subjected to the Geneva Convention when they are dealing with them. However, the majority of them are indeed POWs... even if they are terrorists.

Here's my reasoning:

The Geneva convention was established over 100 years ago to protect prisonners of war ("prisonnier de guerre" as it was put in the original convention).

To be a prisonner of war, you first need to be in a "state of war" (état de guerre). In the 19th Century and, subsequently reestablished in the mid 20th Century when the Geneva Convention was last amended, to be in a "state of war" you need to have 2 or more states (or Countries) fighting on the international scene.

The basic requirement to be at war is to have one of the following:
1- State #1 and #2 make declarations of war
2- State #1 makes a declaration of war and state #2 does not. (and vice-versa)
3- States #1 and #2 don't make a declaration of war but they attack each other.
4- States #1 and #2 don't make a declaration of war but state #1 attack state #2 (and vice-versa)
5- States #1 and #2 don't make a declaration of war but state #1 engages in covert operation within the boundry of state #2 without the consent of State #2 (and vice-versa)
6- A few other that elude me

In the case of this latest Afghan war, the US are at war against Afghanistan. Even if Bush and congress didn't sanction the war, they attack and performed covert operations within the boundry of Afghanistan without the consent of the Afghan government.

With that out of the way, we must now indicate who is eligible as a POW under the Convention.

Just to make things simpler here's who that would be:
Any individual (in uniform or not) employed in a military capacity (openly taking arms) against the state who captured him while in a "state of war".

What does this mean as applied to the Afghan war? Any Taliban fighter, regardless if he is also a Al-Queda terrorist captured by the American in Afghanistan or in the US (so long as he's openly taking arms), is a POW.

However, the Convention does have some exclusions to the status of POW. For exemple, if a Taliban is caught in the US while attempting to sabotage instalations or to assassinate somebody, he would not fall under the definition of a POW under the Convention. Also, the Convention does not apply to internal conflicts, it's only applicable to international conflict.

So, in the conflict at hand, only the following Al-Queda members caught by the US would not qualify under the Convention:
1- Al-Queda fighters captured in Afghanistan that did not fight alongside Taliban fighters
2- Al-Queda fighters captured outside of Afghanistan.

I know that someone will say that the Taliban were not the rightfull leader of Afghanistan and for that reason, they are not covered by the Convention because really, you can't declare war on them, even if you attack them.

IMO, this is a pretty weak argument to make. Let's just jump back 30 years or so. The US were at that time fighting a very similar fight in Vietnam. The US were fighting along side the South Vietnamiese (today's northern alliance) against the Vietcong (today's Taliban). Even in those days, the US did respect the Geneva Convention (most of the time anyway) and so, they should respect it again today!

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

[Pablo the Jester]

Well I agree with david at the most... *erm* I also am a resident

[John D Harris]

Can anyone point to where Usama and his band of low life gully-dirts. Signed the Geneva Convention? The Genevea Convention governs (one of the things BUT NOT THE ONLY THING) how COUNTRIES are to treat prisoners of war, captured during the course of war between countries. we have stepped into a new realm in a war between countries and organizations that seek the distruction of said countries. The truth of the matter is there are not any treaties that govern those circumstances, that I am aware of.
How is the treatment of the terrorists in voilation of the Geneva Convention? Are they being tortured? (see POW of Veitnam, or Japan during the 2nd world war, now those gentlemen can tell you about torture.) So they were blindfolded, handcuffed, shackled, kept seperated, and made to kneel while awaiting processing. That's what passes for torture now?

These men had already started at least one up-rising in a "prisoner of war camp"(said tongue-in-cheeck). Would not your local police force keep you handcuffed, seperated, and subdued if you were arrested(on even the MOST MINOR OF CHARGES) and fought with, or otherwise resisted them at every turn? If you don't believe me just give it a try! How about your courts? If you fought with, resisted, caused a disruption while in court. What would your court system do? gag you? Restrain you? How about remove you from the courtroom while you are being tried? And not be alowed to face your accussors?

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Sir Taliesin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John D Harris:
These men had already started at least one up-rising in a "prisoner of war camp"(said tongue-in-cheeck). Would not your local police force keep you handcuffed, seperated, and subdued if you were arrested(on even the MOST MINOR OF CHARGES) and fought with, or otherwise resisted them at every turn? If you don't believe me just give it a try! How about your courts? If you fought with, resited, caused a disruption while in court. What would your court system do? gag you? Restrain you? How about remove you from the courtroom while you are being tried? And not be alowed to face your accussors?

---

You are exactly right on this one John D. Good to see you again!

I have a solution to the Taliban/Al-Quida problem. I believe that the US should purchase the Falkland Islands from the British Government and move all the civilians off. Then, as these vermin are captured, they should be relocated there. No guards would be needed. A couple of submarines could be placed on permenent patrol and all shipping and flights could be suspended for a two hundred mile zone. Any ship or flight found in the area could be warned a couple of times and then shot down or sunk. The vermin could be left to live life as they want it.