Wolf,

You say you're not taking a stance on holding the prisoners, but you do seem to be taking a stance on not releasing them - is there a difference?

Would I want them living near me? Depends whether they're dangerous terrorists or not really, doesn't it? If there were evidence to suggest that they were, then no, obviously not, but seeing as they haven't been given a fair trial, I don't know, do I?

Anyway, I found the information below, which would seem to indicate that the prisoners have the right to the same treatment as POWs until a 'competent tribunal' has decided their status on a case-by-case basis, which, as far as I know, hasn't happened:

Article 5 requires the establishment of a competent tribunal only "[s]hould any doubt arise" as to whether a detainee meets the requirements for POW status contained in Article 4. The argument has been made that the detainees clearly do not meet one or more of the four requirements for POW status contained in Article 4(A)(2) - that they have a responsible command, carry their arms openly, wear uniforms with distinct insignia, or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. However, under the terms of Article 4(A)(2), these four requirements apply only to militia operating independently of a government's regular armed forces - for example, to those members of al-Qaeda who were operating independently of the Taliban's armed forces. But under Article 4(A)(1) these four requirements do not apply to "members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militia … forming part of such armed forces." That is, this four-part test would not apply to members of the Taliban's armed forces, since the Taliban, as the de facto government of Afghanistan, was a Party to the Geneva Convention. The four-part test would also not apply to militia that were integrated into the Taliban's armed forces, such as, perhaps, the Taliban's "55th Brigade," which we understand to have been composed of foreign troops fighting as part of the Taliban.
Administration officials have repeatedly described the Guantanamo detainees as including both Taliban and al-Qaeda members. A competent tribunal is thus needed to determine whether the detainees are members of the Taliban's armed forces (or an integrated militia), in which case they would be entitled to POW status automatically, or members only of al-Qaeda, in which case they probably would not be entitled to POW status because of their likely failure to meet the above-described four-part test. Until a tribunal makes that determination, Article 5 requires all detainees to be treated as POWs.

As Article 4(A)(3) of the Third Geneva Convention makes clear, recognition of a government is irrelevant to the determination of POW status. It accords POW status without qualification to "[m]embers of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power." That is, the four-part test of Article 4(A)(2) applies only to militia operating independently of a government's armed forces, not to members of a recognized (Article 4(A)(1)) or unrecognized (Article 4(A)(3)) government's armed forces. Thus, whether a government is recognized or not, members of its armed forces are entitled to POW status without the need to meet the four-part test.

This reading of the plain language of Article 4 is consistent with sound policy and past U.S. practice. As a matter of policy, it would undermine the important protections of the Third Geneva Convention if the detaining power could deny POW status by simply withdrawing or withholding recognition of the adversary government. Such a loophole would swallow the detailed guarantees of the Third Geneva Conventions - guarantees on which U.S. and allied troops rely if captured in combat. This reading is also consistent with past U.S. practice. During the Korean War, the United States treated captured Communist Chinese troops as POWs even though at the time the United States (and the United Nations) recognized Taipei rather than Beijing as the legitimate government of China.

Daniel

According to the third Geneva Convention, rights granted to a POW are limited, until the cessation of hostilities. Therefore, until all hostilities between our forces and those of the Taliban and al-Qaeda cease, they are not privy to anything other than what they have been given. Until these hostilities cease, it would be the U.S. government position that no full investigation as to what allegiance these people follow.

By the way, there's a difference between al-Qaeda and China. China is a recognized nation, and those soldiers wore the uniforms of their nation, weren't representing a terrorist organization without (so they say) national roots. A big difference here.

As for what you offered, it was an "interpretation of the fourth Geneva Convention," not the actual text of it. Whether or not the interpretation you've given is exact would probably have to be tested in a court of law, not by someone's personal evaluation and agenda.

I keep repeating. I'm playing devils advocate. Do you know what that means? It means I am pointing out the opposite view of what you say, not saying I believe in it. Quit harping on it. If you don't want your POV to be opposed, write it on a piece of paper and put it in a book on your shelf, don't put it out here on the net.

My belief has always been that people should see both sides of an issue, not look at it with tunnel vision. It gets old hearing one side of an issue.

Now. Back to the same question. Apparently you missed it. Where should these detainnees be sent? Obviously those that aren't Afghani don't belong there. So where do they go? You haven't answered that yet, have you? They are homeless at this point. There's a good chance that a great number of those who are Saudi Arabian would be executed within days if sent home. Of course, if that's what should be done for their civil rights.... let me know... That seems a little harsh to me, but .... to each their own.

Wolf

I promise I will read all your posts in detail Wolf. I've just readen some sentences and something has called my atention: Didn't you said they were not POWs?

Either they are POWs, and should be judged according Geneva Agreement as afghan soldiers or they are just terrorists, in which case they should be judged according american laws. What you can't do is having them in a legal limbo without rights.

Fernando

Wolf,

Your random use of commas and verbs sometimes makes what you're saying a bit unclear, but from this:

"According to the third Geneva Convention, rights granted to a POW are limited, until the cessation of hostilities. Therefore, until all hostilities between our forces and those of the Taliban and al-Qaeda cease, they are not privy to anything other than what they have been given. Until these hostilities cease, it would be the U.S. government position that no full investigation as to what allegiance these people follow."

you seem to be saying that the Guantanamo prisoners have limited rights as POWs under the Geneva Convention until the cessation of hostilities, yet earlier you said they weren't POWs and, as such, didn't have any rights.

What I quoted was, as you noted, an interpretation of certain parts of the Geneva Convention with respect to the case in hand. But I think it sheds enough doubt on the status of the prisoners for them to be treated as POWs until their status is decided by a competent tribunal, as stated in article 5. Is there any problem with letting a competent tribunal decide the status of the prisoners?

What to do with the prisoners after? Well it would seem logical that any guilty ones get an appropriate punishment. And any innocent ones, give them the right to go home or allow them to stay in the States, which I regard as a fair compensation for keeping an innocent person captive in conditions that don't comply with the Geneva Convention - I take it the States doesn't have any problem with innocent people going to live there.

Daniel

Fernando,

You're right in one respect. They are not actually POWs. They are detainees associated with terrorism, not war. They also are not criminals who technically have rights under civil law. They fall under the jurisdiction of the military at this time. Their fate would be determined in military courts, not civl.

Daniel,

Those deemed innocent before a military tribunal should be released like you said. But it's rediculous to say they belong in the U.S. They would only be innocent of conspiring to acts of terrorism against the U.S., not innocent of terrorism against the people of Afghanistan, or the rest of the world.

It's rediculous to say that the U.S. should take them in. Rest assured, they'll be back in the terrorism game within months after they are released.

As for the U.S. "owing them something," I've never heard a bigger crock than that. My guess is you're Canadian. If you're so hot on those that aren't convicted, why don't you take them up there? The fact is that nobody wants them. But everyone wants to tell us what to do with them.

Take a look at the deportees from Palestine a few months ago. Nations screamed that Israel should allow them to leave the country. Then nobody wanted to assume the responsibility for these terrorists. Begrudgingly a few nations did. Spain was one of them, to their credit.

Wolf

If Irak is such an inminent menace, If they can destroy the world, then why didn`t they use their [alleged] MD weapons during the 1st Gulf war, nor the last ten years blockade? What kind of jerks are they? Are they waiting for Kofi Annan to allow them?
I am glad the US army is totally sure all those "Taliban" are evil beyond mercy, `cos you know, many of them in Guantanamo have gone nuts due to "sense isolation", that is, psichological torture-and it would be regretable if such a harm was caused to innocents, under the custody of US government. Some of them even tried to commit suicide crashing their heads against the walls of the cells. Funny, uh?
I am also happy that it is totally confirmed, by reliable sources such as the CIA and Tony Blair, that Irak is a threat to humanity, since some 800 000 children have died in that country due to the blockade, and really I find it, say, difficult to justify such a horrifying thing- unless of course the life of every damned human being on Earth is in danger, due to those secret and terrible weapons that Saddam has. I enjoy greatly, too, that Korea, Israel, and Pakistan and India, can merryly develop and enjoy MD weapons without anyone in the White House, London or Madrid even raising an eyebrow on it. After all, those are four democratical, peaceful, law-abiding countries, which will use their nukes for peaceful means, like vanquishing Kashemir.

When interviewed on ``60 Minutes'' in 1996, Secretary of State Madeline Albright -- then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- was asked if the deaths of a half-million children in Iraq were acceptable. Her answer: ``I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think the price is worth it.'' http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/08/06/SC54SUN.DTL

SandraZ
Of course Christian Arabs exist. In Lebanon I heard they add one half of the population. I know it is possible to combine both things, being an Arab and a Christian, I just said: "many Arabs would find it difficult to separate Islam and Arab identity". And I am sure I was right on that, many can`t. In Arab countries there is almost no distinction between religion and politics (including national identity matters). The king of Morocco, for instance, is the head of state, the real master of the country, the richest man in Morocco and the first (Islamic) religious authority.
I think the glory of Arabs, their greatest conquests, started when they converted to Islam. And their language became a vehicle for written literature mainly due to Quram... or so I thought (I`m just an amateur on this)

Quote Wolf:

"As for the U.S. "owing them something," I've never heard a bigger crock than that. My guess is you're Canadian. If you're so hot on those that aren't convicted, why don't you take them up there? The fact is that nobody wants them. But everyone wants to tell us what to do with them."

Why is it "crock" that keeping an innocent person in captivity under conditions that break the Geneva Convention means that you owe them something?

If someone is wrongly convicted of something and sent to jail, they can usually get compensation if they can prove their innocence; this is society's way of trying to make up for wrongly punishing them, which is, in my opinion, quite a civilised response. Why should it be any different for any Guantanamo prisoners who are found to be innocent?

Why should the US take them instead of other countries? Because it's the US, in the case of any innocent captives, that has wrongly punished them.

Daniel

I couldn`t help thinking that the following article might be regarded as interesting as far as the current issue is concerned

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue11/isue11_part4.htm

I'm eager to see what Powell has to show to the world and also what Aznar has to say today in the Parlament. They may change my view on the war if they are enough convincing.

Fernando