Since when is it American to lock people in a box for 3 years?

[james]

Originally Posted by StewartG

...America's proud reputation of leading the world in the causes of freedom and justice.

can you give me a time frame on this? My memory only goes back till the age of four, more or less (1971), and I don't remember this period.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to combat that is NOT a conflict between two countries.

Could you post what it says by the way, I keep using as a question mark, as my son did something to the keyboard while he was playing on the Disney Channel.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by james

can you give me a time frame on this? My memory only goes back till the age of four, more or less (1971), and I don't remember this period.

Was it the Kennedy years I am kind of lost, as well. As far as I know, the USA has been about its own self interest from the get go.

[Lil G]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to combat that is NOT a conflict between two countries.

Please post Article 3, sir. I am most interested.

[Lil G]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Was it the Kennedy years I am kind of lost, as well. As far as I know, the USA has been about its own self interest from the get go.

Hello, then why are we the most giving country in the world...and why does everyone look at us when they have problems expecting us to fix them?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Lil G

Hello, then why are we the most giving country in the world...and why does everyone look at us when they have problems expecting us to fix them?

That is true, but it is always in our best interests.

[PlayadelSoul]

Lil G, here is Article 3. I cannot see how it applies, but you can decide for yourself.

Print this page

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article [Display Introduction] [Display Full text] [Display articles] [Display commentaries]

Part I : General provisions
ARTICLE 3

• In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
  
  (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
  To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
  
  (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
  
  (b) taking of hostages;
  
  (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
  
  (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
  
  (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
  
  An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
  The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
  The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
  

[Lil G]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Lil G, here is Article 3. I cannot see how it applies, but you can decide for yourself.

Print this page

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article [Display Introduction] [Display Full text] [Display articles] [Display commentaries]

Part I : General provisions
ARTICLE 3

• In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
  
  (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
  To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
  
  (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
  
  (b) taking of hostages;
  
  (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
  
  (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
  
  (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
  
  An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
  The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
  The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Thank you, sir. No active part in hostilities, laid down arms...interesting. Blah, blah, blah, don't see it applying either bud. (BTW, does cutting someone's head off with a dull sword count?)

[Jacko]

It applies because of the following...sheesh! even the Pentagon and the administration now says it applies...you agree with the administration, right?

Originally Posted by Jacko

Interesting report here by legal counsel for two of the detainees....what if there is any merit to this?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The media and public fascination with who is detained at Guantanamo and why has been fueled in large measure by the refusal of the Government, on the grounds of national security, to provide much information about the individuals and the charges against them. The information available to date has been anecdotal and erratic, drawn largely from interviews with the few detainees who have been released or from statements or court filings by their attorneys in the pending habeas corpus proceedings that the Government has not declared “classified.”

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents.

This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called “the worst of the worst.”

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

[Jacko]

Do numbers 1 and 4 give any of you on the "conservative side" of this issue any cause for concern? Any at all?

Originally Posted by Jacko

Interesting report here by legal counsel for two of the detainees....what if there is any merit to this?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The media and public fascination with who is detained at Guantanamo and why has been fueled in large measure by the refusal of the Government, on the grounds of national security, to provide much information about the individuals and the charges against them. The information available to date has been anecdotal and erratic, drawn largely from interviews with the few detainees who have been released or from statements or court filings by their attorneys in the pending habeas corpus proceedings that the Government has not declared “classified.”

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents.

This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called “the worst of the worst.”

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by Lil G

Thank you, sir. No active part in hostilities, laid down arms...interesting. Blah, blah, blah, don't see it applying either bud. (BTW, does cutting someone's head off with a dull sword count?)

One of the reasons it applies is because the US Supreme Court has said it does. There is further commentary from the I.C.R.C, concerning article three at this link:http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f...b?OpenDocument No doubt, one needs to fully understand the context.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by horizon200

A hell of a lot more humanitarian than they would grant you or I!

Yes. Exactly. Which makes us the greatest nation on earth.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Lil G

Hate to burst your bubble... these are terrorists, not part of army of a real country. So the Geneva Convention does not apply. By the way, they would like to kill you as much as me or any other American, or can I be so bold to say Christian.

Correction, they are SUSPECTED terrorists.

In any event... Lil G - the Supreme Court has officially disagreed with you. They recently held that the Geneva conventions do apply.

But even if the Geneva convention did not apply - what gives us the right to lock SUSPECTS up for three years without a trial?

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You are the lawyer. Just what is it that we are going to charge them with State or Federal What country do they represent that is a member of the Geneva convention Do we invent some sort of new court that the Supreme Court will just strike down as illegal As usual, Stewart, you are all about complaining about Bush, and offering no solution. So, lets just cut them loose and let them live next door to you. We trust that you have all of our best interests at heart, and will keep an eye on them.

Sorry PDS, I thought my proposed solution was obvious. Put them on trial. Apparently the Supreme Court agrees with me, albeit three years too late!

I am a lawyer, but I don't practice international law. I don't really care that much about WHICH system they are tried under - military law, federal law or at the Hauge. I just think its wrong, wrong, wrong to lock SUSPECTS up for three years with NO trial, hearing, etc. It goes against everything I hold dear as an American.

[bufante]

I can understand how someone would say that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention may apply to the "hostages" in Guantanamo Bay.

My question is this, because we are fighting a war with a group of people (who do not follow the Geneva Convention) and not a country, do these rules really apply?
Also, what if the people we are at "war" with are not following the same rules? I know we are supposedly better then that, and not relating to this particular case, would it be okay, morally or ethically, to throw out rules that have not been universaly followed when it comes to national security or even people's lives?

This does not by any means suggest that I agree or disagree with what is happening in Guantanamo..I am just curious about the rules of "war".