thirteen31 posted:devoy posted:votiVe posted: Note: a.) Torture is against Geneva Conventions
That's inaccurate. The Geneva conventions only apply to prisoners of war. The detainees in Guantanamo are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war. You can argue about that endlessly, but it's not going to change the detainees' legal classification.
I believe this has been covered before, but isn't a prisoner of war a combatant in definition? Therefore, making the detainees a prisoner of war? Explain to me what you mean when you say the "detainees' legal classification" and is America not at war thus making any detainee imprisoned during or immediately after conflict, just that - a PRISONER OF WAR?
Hey again 1331, and Devoy.
I've given up hope that this forum will actually be replaced with Trent calling for action, so I guess I'll step back into the mud with you. *sigh*
To the current point, 13, on the relationship between pow and "combatants". I believe you've set up an inductive fallacy here...and are using an unsound premise. You know I respect you, so don't take this the wrong way:
Q:
thirteen31 posted:...isn't a prisoner of war a combatant in definition...
A: No. One need not have been involved in combat to be detained as a p.o.w. under Geneva Convention rules. The applicable article of the 3rdGC is linked here, see article 4. [
en.wikipedia.org]
Q:
thirteen31 posted:...Therefore, making the detainees a prisoner of war...
A: No. This is the fallacy I refer to above. Even though all ducks have webbed phalanges, not all creatures with webbed phalanges are ducks.
Q:
thirteen31 posted:...is America not at war...
A: No. (don't shoot the messenger, but you're not going to like this part at all.) We are no longer at "war" with Iraq. We have status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. Nor are we at "war" with Afghanistan. the situation is more convoluted there but we have diplomatic relations with the sitting government. The argument put forward, as I understand it, is that we are involved in "low intensity conflicts" with "extremist groups" in both of those countries, and in several others.
In the case of Iraq, the part of the invasion that was a "war" formally ended on 09 Apr 2003, the point at which Coalition forces formally occupied Baghdad.
In the case of Afghanistan, there are two main areas of US involvement. We have a troop presence within the NATO-led peacekeeping mission (the International Security Assistance Force), and a US-led combat operation known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Neither of these is a conflict with the government of Afghanistan. Officially the "war" in Afghanistan appears to have ended sometime before 15 NOV 2001, as that was the initial release date for the first public draft of US Congressional Research document RL30588, entitled "Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy
November 15, 2001" [
opencrs.com]
I have to refrain from making any value judgments on the above information, as you know. I will say though, that these situations mesh together to create the current situation in which detainees at Guantanamo need not, by default, be prisoners of war, as defined by the GC's.
There are, potentially, a variety of reasons given that these detainees might not be accorded p.o.w. status...
A: Combatant members of extremist groups may or may not meet the requirements under the 3rdGC, part 1, articles 4.1.2 through 4.1.6, and therefore may or may not be covered under the GC's.
B: They are not being detained while US troops are in combat against the forces of a nation that is a signatory to the GC's.
C: You can't go to "war" (in the internationally accepted legalistic sense of the word) against Al Qaeda, or the Taleban, because they aren't nation-states.
D: Even if these detainees met the the GC requirements to be accorded POW status, and were incarcerated during a "war" the 3rdGC, states that
3rdGCPart1Article2 posted:That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.
So, it could be argued from that point
only, that as soon as any Coalition, NATO, or other signatory has a civilian or military service member treated in a way that violates the GC's by an given organization, any incarcerated member of that organization immediately loses protection under the GC's pow provisions.
Now, I'm presenting information. I'm not a military lawyer. My presentation here is not informed by anything other than public domain information, and I don't speak for my government in any binding way. That's all. I make no judgments on policy.
I don't think I can safely address the most obvious rebuttals to this stuff, regarding the tendency we have, as a nation, to find ourselves engaged in various "War on (insert noun or euphemism)" scenarios. All I can do is quote Tupac Shakur:
"Instead of a war on poverty, we've got a war on drugs, so the police can bother me."
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2008 09:34PM by aboniks.
