Author Topic: Human shield gets Fined?  (Read 4397 times)

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #120 on: August 14, 2003, 02:45:17 PM »
Thanks for the info, but call me dense:

1.  The Gitmo guys are accused, I assume, of at least two things.  (a) Plotting/being involved in/assisting, etc. terrorist strikes against U.S. interest, property and people.  If so, NYC is the most infamous example (committed on U.S. soil), with the Cole also being infamous (attack against U.S. property).  I struggle with the idea that the offences were not, therefore, on U.S. soil, but far be it from me to second guess the learned members of the U.S. judiciary.
(b) Fighting against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and being captured.  Not sure how one is not a POW in that case, but again I defer to the above mentioned learned members.

2. So the President has the authority to, in essence, say that these prisoners will be detained "offshore" such that the Constitution will not apply to them, which Constitution, if it did apply, might very well prohibit the President from making any such order?  I have to tell you, that as "cute" as that is (and I credit the members of the Justice Department for (a) coming up with that and (b) defending it in court), IMHO it is an affront to everything that the United States tries to represent itself to the rest of the world.

At the end of the day, I really don't care what happens to any of these guys.  But here's the thing...the greatest thing that the United States or any other Western democracy can export to the less developed and more violent parts of the world is our legal, political and judicial systems.  So, when from the left side of our mouths we tell the world about "freedom", "due process", etc., but from the right side of our mouths we ignore, at times, the very principles that we are trying to export, I can understand how the people we are trying to convince think, rightly or wrongly, that we are all just full of ****.

The greatest thing that George Bush could have done with the Gitmo guys is to extend to them the very protections that are available to people in all other Western democracies.  Having not done so, he missed a wonderful opportunity to show the world what America is all about.  Instead, an outsider (particularly one with a grudge or fanatacism, whether religious or otherwise) might conclude, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the freedoms that all Americans all hold so dear are only available to Americans (the "All animals are equal...but some animals are more equal than others" issue).

The opportunity to teach a valuable lesson was lost.  The United States had a chance to show the world that it extends its rights and freedoms not only to its best citizens, but also to its worst enemies, and could have lessened world hatred against it, even by a minute amount, by doing so.

If we are afraid to extend to our worst enemies the principles that we all hold so dear, how valuable can those principles really be.

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #121 on: August 14, 2003, 02:58:58 PM »
How can anyone decide if POW status is granted or not? There isn't anything to decide, it's clearly defined in the genva convention.

"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."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


Those so-called unlawful combatants, how were they involved in the war? How were they fighting?

I could imagine that A6 probably fits to many of them.

If they were not fighting, but just capture because they were considered terrorists...

"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:
...
(b) Taking of hostages;"

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #122 on: August 14, 2003, 03:11:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MJHerman
Thanks for the info, but call me dense:

1.  The Gitmo guys are accused, I assume, of at least two things.  (a) Plotting/being involved in/assisting, etc. terrorist strikes against U.S. interest, property and people.  If so, NYC is the most infamous example (committed on U.S. soil), with the Cole also being infamous (attack against U.S. property).  I struggle with the idea that the offences were not, therefore, on U.S. soil, but far be it from me to second guess the learned members of the U.S. judiciary.
(b) Fighting against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and being captured.  Not sure how one is not a POW in that case, but again I defer to the above mentioned learned members.

2. So the President has the authority to, in essence, say that these prisoners will be detained "offshore" such that the Constitution will not apply to them, which Constitution, if it did apply, might very well prohibit the President from making any such order?  I have to tell you, that as "cute" as that is (and I credit the members of the Justice Department for (a) coming up with that and (b) defending it in court), IMHO it is an affront to everything that the United States tries to represent itself to the rest of the world.

At the end of the day, I really don't care what happens to any of these guys.  But here's the thing...the greatest thing that the United States or any other Western democracy can export to the less developed and more violent parts of the world is our legal, political and judicial systems.  So, when from the left side of our mouths we tell the world about "freedom", "due process", etc., but from the right side of our mouths we ignore, at times, the very principles that we are trying to export, I can understand how the people we are trying to convince think, rightly or wrongly, that we are all just full of ****.

The greatest thing that George Bush could have done with the Gitmo guys is to extend to them the very protections that are available to people in all other Western democracies.  Having not done so, he missed a wonderful opportunity to show the world what America is all about.  Instead, an outsider (particularly one with a grudge or fanatacism, whether religious or otherwise) might conclude, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the freedoms that all Americans all hold so dear are only available to Americans (the "All animals are equal...but some animals are more equal than others" issue).

The opportunity to teach a valuable lesson was lost.  The United States had a chance to show the world that it extends its rights and freedoms not only to its best citizens, but also to its worst enemies, and could have lessened world hatred against it, even by a minute amount, by doing so.

If we are afraid to extend to our worst enemies the principles that we all hold so dear, how valuable can those principles really be.


Many of your points I completely agree with.  Don't hold me to this, it's just my opion, but I would suspect that there are several important reasons this was done:

 If they were to go into our legal system, interrogation is now out.  Depositions and interviews are now taken while accompanied by a lawyer who advises him what he can or cannot say.

On the heels of 9/11, it was extremely important that we gathered as much information as necessary to head off future attacks, thus saving lives.  Invoking the 5th obviously would hinder gathering this information.

You have to make a choice at some point.  Do we put them into the legal system and forfeit much of the intelligence we stand to gain, or keep them in GTMO (which is without question in the best interests of national security) while thumbing our noses at the "spirit of the law".  

In THIS case, I feel we did the right thing.  I don't feel the biggest downside is the image we portray, but the precedent we set.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #123 on: August 14, 2003, 03:13:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ccvi
How can anyone decide if POW status is granted or not? There isn't anything to decide, it's clearly defined in the genva convention.

 


It's also clearly defined in MO 11/2001, and upheld by the courts,  that the Geneva Convention does not apply here.

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #124 on: August 14, 2003, 03:16:30 PM »
Just like I told...  now he retorts to recent law changes by the Bush administration.

Slowly becomes a good semi-facistic state.

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #125 on: August 14, 2003, 03:17:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
It's also clearly defined in MO 11/2001, and upheld by the courts,  that the Geneva Convention does not apply here.


Then that's a violation in itself.

"Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."


ps: it's not up to US courts to decide...

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #126 on: August 14, 2003, 03:24:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
Just like I told...  now he retorts to recent law changes by the Bush administration.

Slowly becomes a good semi-facistic state.


Are you still here?

Got your 3 items of proof yet, or did you just pop your head in to spout off again?

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #127 on: August 14, 2003, 03:30:15 PM »
Martlet,

Just laughing at your pathetism.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #128 on: August 14, 2003, 03:33:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ccvi
Then that's a violation in itself.

"Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."


ps: it's not up to US courts to decide...


The Geneva Convention applies to armed conflict between 2 High Contracting Parties.  Terrorists don't fall under that category, sorry.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #129 on: August 14, 2003, 03:35:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,

Just laughing at your pathetism.


You really crack me up.  You just spit out what you hear.  A true sheep.  You don't have a single shred of evidence to back up ANY of what you spew.

You really should be reading textbooks to educate yourself, not AH BBS.

This topic has gone so far over your head already, that it will take 4 years of college for you to understand it.

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #130 on: August 14, 2003, 03:40:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
The Geneva Convention applies to armed conflict between 2 High Contracting Parties.  Terrorists don't fall under that category, sorry.


I don't remember the geneva convention making exceptions for certain kind of citizens of high contracting countries.

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #131 on: August 14, 2003, 03:49:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
You really should be reading textbooks to educate yourself, not AH BBS.

This topic has gone so far over your head already, that it will take 4 years of college for you to understand it.


I don't bother becoming a temporary guantamo bay specialist over a thread, where the opposing side will always find a new excuse to disqualify proofs and actually act stupid, as if they'd never heard of something. :rolleyes:

That is for those kids who tries to be in effect in the only place they can do so.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #132 on: August 14, 2003, 03:51:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ccvi
I don't remember the geneva convention making exceptions for certain kind of citizens of high contracting countries.


"Illegal Combatants" do not fall under the Geneva Convention.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #133 on: August 14, 2003, 03:53:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
I don't bother becoming a temporary guantamo bay specialist over a thread, where the opposing side will always find a new excuse to disqualify proofs and actually act stupid, as if they'd never heard of something. :rolleyes:

That is for those kids who tries to be in effect in the only place they can do so.


You were "expert" enough to make accusations, doesn't it make sense that you would have information that caused you to form those accusations?  Or do you just wake up in the morning with a freshly baked accusation bouncing around an otherwise empty head?

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Human shield gets Fined?
« Reply #134 on: August 14, 2003, 03:57:01 PM »
Martlet,

after the news, specialists, human right organizations etc. etc. have made the accusation... yes.. I do have a right to make the accusation.