Is the holding of prisoners at Gitmo a violation of the Geneva Convention? - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-05-2003, 05:37 PM Thread Starter
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Is the holding of prisoners at Gitmo a violation of the Geneva Convention?

Let's hear what you think.....
AL P is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-05-2003, 05:44 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: DFW
Posts: 526
tough shit if it is
turbodave is offline  
post #3 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-05-2003, 06:13 PM
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally posted by turbodave
tough shit if it is
LOL

Fobra is offline  
 
post #4 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-05-2003, 06:24 PM
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
no

it dosen't cover illegal combatants
jyro is offline  
post #5 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-08-2003, 09:05 AM
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
I'll be honest and state that I think the DoD is walking a very fine line here. If this were just any ordinary war, I'd have to say that they were in the wrong in this case. However, the Geneva conventions just doesn't fit the definition of war as it currently exists in this "War on Terrorism." The DoD is correct in that many of these (if not all) combatants were not from Afganistan. Also, many of them have direct connections to Bin Laden (at least that is the claim.) Lastly, I can't understand why people bitch when the fact is, if we kept them in Afganistans prisons, they would be MUCH worse off and most likely would not have survived. I'll go a step further and say that I would have left them in Afganistan and let the new Afgani government torture the shit out of them until we got the info we wanted.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #6 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-18-2003, 06:27 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
Originally posted by turbodave
tough shit if it is
they could be dead, instead they're on a nice secluded island getaway, they are shitting in high cotton if you ask me
11B2V_Mike is offline  
post #7 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-22-2003, 09:49 AM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Fuck that, an EPW is anyone engaged in conflict against America civilian or not... blah blah blah. Its legal and it gives the poor devil dogs somethign to play with down there.
SlowLX is offline  
post #8 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-22-2003, 05:34 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
A few things..

1. We're keeping them in Gitmo because they have valuable information about terrorist activities, procedures, and plans and we're interrogating the hell out of em to keep tabs on this stuff.

2. We could have put a bullet in their brains in the deserts of Afghanistan and no one would know the difference.

3. Because of #1, we didn't do #2.

4. The reason we are not calling them POW (and would have to protect their rights according to the GC) is because you can't do #1 to a POW. Hence, they are called "enemy combatants".

We are stomping the fuck out of their civil rights and the Geneva Convention, BUT.. that's what you get for being a deadbeat piece of trash terrorist, or being in cahoots with them.

Al Qaeda doesn't seem to be too "up" on civil rights or the GC anyways. They're not waging war against a defined state, they're waging holy war against any infidel regardless of the territory they happen to be in at the time (although U.S. targets are particularly sought after). IMO, we are fighting the war as justly and humanely as is possible, so who gives a rats ass if a bunch of dirty hateful bastards get to waste away in a tropical prison. Hell, it doesn't sound too much worse than the deserts of Afghanistan to me.
46Tbird is offline  
post #9 of 9 (permalink) Old 12-23-2003, 02:03 PM Thread Starter
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
The convention is very specific in regards to who is a POW and who is not. A lot of people will point out that there is nothing in the treaty that allows for people to be held as "enemy combatants". I would submit that the specific wording of the treaty does just that, by specifically excluding POW status from certain people who may take up arms in a conflict....


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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


You will notice that Article 4 section A requires:

....a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...

Many of these people did not. Some would say that the fedayeen prisoners from Iraq had a black armband that differentiated them from civilians. But that isn't fixed insignia.


......That of carrying arms openly.....

Highly debateable


.....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.....

The Iraqis and Afghans had WEEKS and/or MONTHS of notice. Nothing about their resistance was spontaneous. Not only that, but they had the time to form themselves into organized units and chose not to.


And finally, the ultimate cop out for every European idiot that screams how illegal our holding of these prisoners is, Article 5, which says:

.....Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.....

Of course, if you read Article 4 and pay attention, there is no doubt that these people are not POWs.

Last edited by AL P; 12-23-2003 at 04:48 PM.
AL P is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome