Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Supreme Court declares US Guantanamo tribunals illegal

angry bob said:
MatthewCuffe said:
And what is the significance of this verdict in relation to the future closure of Guantanamo and all the rest of the torture and/or death camps?

Probably not good. In as much as the govt really doesnt know what to do with the detainees ... and now they cant try them as planned.
They could still try them - just not as planned.

I think many many should simply be let go because there is zero evidence against them (I don't think the british cases are unique) - but that does leave the question of what to do with those who were captured in the act of fighting US forces and who would go back to fighting US forces. The obvious thing to do would be to hold them as POWs, but wouldn't that require the US to declare war on someone and give a reasonable objective for that war so that it could be determined when the war was over and the POWs should be released?
 
TAE said:
The obvious thing to do would be to hold them as POWs, but wouldn't that require the US to declare war on someone and give a reasonable objective for that war so that it could be determined when the war was over and the POWs should be released?

I don't think the US would need to declare a war. I think the detainee may need to be from a signatory state (not sure) and I am fairly sure that lawful (POW) combatant status and non-lawful combatant status are defined in the treaty and its protocols. That distinction is quite intentional and I believe that non-lawful combatants are subject to trial and punishment while POWs may be held until the cessation of hostilities. That last bit "until the cessation of hostilities" is troubling of course because the parameters of the "war" the are being held during is a murky concept. It's my belief that few would be able to argue successfully that they are POWs - which for many is good as it would define them as non-lawful and force a trial which would probably result in aquittal or conviction of relatively minor offenses resulting in a kick in the ass and a tiocket home. However, that leaves a nasty few and what to do with them is maybe more tricky.
 
xiannaix said:
I don't think the US would need to declare a war.
How can you have a prisoner-of-war without a war? In fact, could it not be argued that all military action is unlawful if not done in the context of a declaration of war?

xiannaix said:
I think the detainee may need to be from a signatory state (not sure) ...
Yes, if the US wanted to be legalistic about it.
xiannaix said:
... and I am fairly sure that lawful (POW) combatant status and non-lawful combatant status are defined in the treaty and its protocols. That distinction is quite intentional and I believe that non-lawful combatants are subject to trial and punishment while POWs may be held until the cessation of hostilities.
The problem of course is how do you establish who is an non-lawful combatant in the first place.

xiannaix said:
That last bit "until the cessation of hostilities" is troubling of course because the parameters of the "war" the are being held during is a murky concept.
Indeed.

xiannaix said:
It's my belief that few would be able to argue successfully that they are POWs - which for many is good as it would define them as non-lawful and force a trial which would probably result in aquittal or conviction of relatively minor offenses resulting in a kick in the ass and a tiocket home.
Perhaps. But what about the UK soldiers who were found to be involved in military activities without uniform? And what IS a uniform? The afghan fighters were wearing exactly the same 'uniform' as they had been wearing for decades.

xiannaix said:
However, that leaves a nasty few and what to do with them is maybe more tricky.
That was my question.
 
xiannaix said:
Something about appeasement alligators and Churchill comes to mind.
Oh please.

You are not fighting a real threat to liberal democracy like the Nazis.
You are fighting the Islamo-fascists in your head.

But carry on jettising your most precious inheritance, your rights and freedoms, at the earliest opportunity.

Unchecked executive power of the US government is the real enemy of the American people.
Their 'War on Evil' rhetoric is depressingly effective.
 
Xipe Totec said:
Oh please.

You are not fighting a real threat to liberal democracy like the Nazis.
You are fighting the Islamo-fascists in your head.

But carry on jettising your most precious inheritance, your rights and freedoms, at the earliest opportunity.

Unchecked executive power of the US government is the real enemy of the American people.
The effectiveness of their 'War on Evil' rhetoric is depressingly effective.


you're right - Islamo-fascists are nowhere near the threat that Nazi's were - I was simlpy making a point about appeasement not comparing the threats posed by either


the remainder of your comments - typical oblivious bs
 
xiannaix said:
you're right - Islamo-fascists are nowhere near the threat that Nazi's were - I was simlpy making a point about appeasement not comparing the threats posed by either


the remainder of your comments - typical oblivious bs
I think it's the Xs in your name, with a few exceptions they seem to denote a particular inability to discuss things sensibly.
 
TAE said:
How can you have a prisoner-of-war without a war? In fact, could it not be argued that all military action is unlawful if not done in the context of a declaration of war?

Just because Congress did not declare a war that doesn't mean that enemy combatants wouldn't qualify for Geneva protections. As for your second comment - depends on who you ask. At law in the US - no it is not. Viet Nam was never a declared war and was not illegal if you ask the US and France etc but was if you ask the government of the North.

TAE said:
Yes, if the US wanted to be legalistic about it.

But I think we don't require it to apply it.

TAE said:
The problem of course is how do you establish who is an non-lawful combatant in the first place.

No, its not really a foggy area at all. it's defined in the geneva conventions - short answer - uniformed combatants serving a government - "real soldiers" in a traditional sense. Its in the treaties you can look it up. ;)

TAE said:
Perhaps. But what about the UK soldiers who were found to be involved in military activities without uniform? And what IS a uniform?

It is my belief that they could well be considered spies if captured by an enemy - however, do you think those who may capture the out of uniform Brits adhere to Geneva? Which makes the question, sadly, moot.

TAE said:
The afghan fighters were wearing exactly the same 'uniform' as they had been wearing for decades.

The definition of lawful v unlawful is available for you to look up ;)

I have to run soon but I'll try to dig it up and send you the link

TAE said:
That was my question.

hehe - and I'm saying I don't know
 
Bob_the_lost said:
I think it's the Xs in your name, with a few exceptions they seem to denote a particular inability to discuss things sensibly.


wonderfully substantive Bob - thanks for the insight
 
xiannaix said:
No, its not really a foggy area at all.
Oh but it is. I've read the convention. For instance, is a stealth bomber marked with a clear symbol recognisable from a distance?


xiannaix said:
It is my belief that they could well be considered spies if captured by an enemy - however, do you think those who may capture the out of uniform Brits adhere to Geneva? Which makes the question, sadly, moot.
Spies? No, they were reportedly shooting at iraqi police and held with the consent of the basra authorities. And what about 'security contractors' ?

xiannaix said:
The definition of lawful v unlawful is available for you to look up ;)

I have to run soon but I'll try to dig it up and send you the link
Please do.

xiannaix said:
hehe - and I'm saying I don't know
:)
 
xiannaix said:
TAE said:
The problem of course is how do you establish who is an non-lawful combatant in the first place.
No, its not really a foggy area at all. it's defined in the geneva conventions - short answer - uniformed combatants serving a government - "real soldiers" in a traditional sense. Its in the treaties you can look it up. ;)
That's not quite what I meant. I was thinking of cases like this one:

"Libyan-born Mr Deghayes, 37, of Brighton, has been held at Guantanamo for three years. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and accused of committing terrorist acts against the US, but his lawyers claim it is a case of mistaken identity."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4971900.stm
 
ViolentPanda said:
"War of terror"?

Freudian slip? :p


No, it was me using quotations to suggest what the person with whom I was exchanging comments was suggesting not what I was saying - please read more carefully

Xipe Totec said:
I am tickled by this assertion.

Would you be so good as to enlighten me of what I am oblivious to?

I think that an uphill battle I would never find reward from fighting and I suspect you'd agree ;)


TAE said:
Oh but it is. I've read the convention. For instance, is a stealth bomber marked with a clear symbol recognisable from a distance?

Nope, is any states air fighter so marked and is that craft specifically implicated under that section? I noted I'd post those relevent sections for you when I cam across them - could you refer the link to me so I could have the source materials in front of such that my answers to you had better foundation than simple recall from memory?

TAE said:
Spies? No, they were reportedly shooting at iraqi police and held with the consent of the basra authorities.

Well, then I would suggest that rather than being spies they were in fact criminals.

TAE said:
And what about 'security contractors' ?

Godd question - I do not know what law applies to them or how and I'm curious too.

TAE said:
Please do.


:)

lol - apparently - now I am relying on you for the link as you've made concrete claims as to air craft and such and I had restricted mine to people.

I await your retort and reference ;)
 
TAE said:
That's not quite what I meant. I was thinking of cases like this one:

"Libyan-born Mr Deghayes, 37, of Brighton, has been held at Guantanamo for three years. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and accused of committing terrorist acts against the US, but his lawyers claim it is a case of mistaken identity."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4971900.stm




Gevena III Article 4 discusses who is classified at a prisoner of war
in relevent part - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
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.

(GCIV art. 4) - additionaly, non signatory states do have protections of the convention - the taliban was, afaik, not a signatory

however, not sure where foreign nationals from a signatory state captured on the territory of a non signatory state fall - I'd presume protected but haven't any documentation ot rgue one way or the other


Geneva IV Article 5 discusses those who don't fit Article 4 and says - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 5
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

so they can be held incommunicado but must be offered a fair trial - as prescribed by the convention - according to Art. 5 anyway
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
I haven't seen who voted which way, but I'm willing to guess that the dissent was Scalia, Thomas, and Alito or Roberts. Have no idea why it was 5-3. We're missing one Justice.

I was wondering too who the dissenters were.
 
This is a good day for the US. It's a good realtime demonstration of what the term 'checks and balances' means.

Bush has been going outside the envelope lately on a few things. Luckily, the Supreme Court is there to remind him what the law is, and that he also has to obey it. It's especially gratifying coming from what many consider to be a conservative bench.

You in the UK have been debating whether or not you need a written constitution. This is a good example of why the answer to that question, is 'yes'.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Bush has been going outside the envelope lately on a few things. Luckily, the Supreme Court is there to remind him what the law is, and that he also has to obey it. It's especially gratifying coming from what many consider to be a conservative bench.


Republican senators immediately began planning how to win congressional approval for new tribunals.


http://news.bbc.co.uk
/2/hi/americas/5131812.stm




So they just want to change the rules now :confused:



Very fair. Go USA :rolleyes:
 
xiannaix said:
can the claim be uttered absent a chorus of giggles from either the claimant or his audience

for example - "is the US war of terror is a campaign of genocide?"
there is zero evidenec to create a reasonable basis for the question and as such the asker should blush and the listener giggle

You really think it's funny that Bush has ordered tens of thousands of people killed using illegal weapons - the consequences of which will affect not just the iraqi people, but our soldiers and, ultimately, us.

I know I posted this link [below] before today on another thread but anyone who could 'giggle' about Bush's war on terror has to be severely demented, or on drugs or something.

Will you still find it funny, or deny that it's genocide, after reading this
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0629-32.htm

Depleted uranium — DU — is the Defense Establishment euphemism for U-238, a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process and the ultimate dirty weapon material. It’s almost twice as dense as lead, catches fire when launched and explodes on impact into microscopically fine particles, or “nano-particles,” which are easily inhaled or absorbed through the skin; it’s also radioactive, with a half-life of 4.468 billion years.
And we make bombs and bullets out of it — it’s the ultimate penetrating weapon. We dropped at least 300 tons of it on Iraq during Gulf War I (the first time it was used in combat) and created Gulf War Syndrome. This time around, the estimated DU use on defenseless Iraq is 1,700 tons, far more of it in major population centers. Remember shock and awe? We were pounding Baghdad, in those triumphant early days, with low-grade nuclear weapons, raining down cancer, neurological disorders, birth defects and much, much more on the people we claimed to be liberating. We weren’t spreading democracy, we were altering the human genome.

As we “protected ourselves,” in the words of the president, from Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, we opened our own arsenal of WMD on them, contaminating the country’s soil and polluting its air — indeed, unleashing a nuclear dust into the troposphere and contaminating the whole world.

“We used to think (DU) traveled up to a hundred miles,” Chris Busby told me. Busby, a chemical physicist and member of the British government’s radiation risk committee, as well as the founder of the European Committee of Radiation Risk, has monitored air quality in Great Britain. Based on these findings, “It looks like it goes quite around the planet,” he said.

As for the Gitmo prisoners, chances are that many of them will be disappeared to these other prisons around the world that Bush has had built. I don't understand how anyone can be so blase about the effects of torture after what happened in WW2. My dad, like thousands of others, was taken prisoner by the Japanese and spent years being tortured. It changed his life [and then ours] for ever. He couldn't express any emotion apart from fits of uncontrollable anger. I don't think I ever saw him smile.
So giggle about that, you heartless berk - these people all have families - and many of them were sold to the US for $1,000 each after being kidnapped by our noble allies, the Northern Alliance, to whom they were merely a commodity.
 
From an article I just read. If there is no risk in releasing them, why keep them locked up at all - but I guess just letting them go would embarrass Bushco, and we can't have that, can we?

"Today, no one can credibly maintain that the prisoners in Cuba are the worst of the worst. ... More than 250 prisoners have been released with no intimation that they did anything wrong. The chief interrogator at the base says 75 percent of the prisoners are no longer being questioned. Even the camp commander says many of the 500 who remain could be released tomorrow at no risk to the United States."
http://www.alternet.org/rights/38255/
 
xiannaix said:
As for Git'mo and Bush's legacy. We'll see. I think he has the oppotunity to be remembered well (but this will probably be something that was mostly out of his hands even if it was a ball he sent into motion) or very poorly - I think Git'mo would be a minor sympton of a greater bad diagnosis should his legacy fall on that side of the spectrum.
And just what will Bush be "remembered well" for? xiannaix, I don't know you from a hole in the wall (I haven't been around much and you are relatively new to U75), but thinking that Bush can in any context be "remembered well" suggests you have left just the thinnest thread back to the reality most of us live. No flame intended, but can you explain yourself? What positive balls has Bush set in motion?
 
davekriss said:
And just what will Bush be "remembered well" for? xiannaix, I don't know you from a hole in the wall (I haven't been around much and you are relatively new to U75), but thinking that Bush can in any context be "remembered well" suggests you have left just the thinnest thread back to the reality most of us live. No flame intended, but can you explain yourself? What positive balls has Bush set in motion?

To show the rest of the untalented, waste of space, ego driven with a superiority complex buffoons that it is possible for them to pretend that they actually are the people that they thought they were in the first place.


Rascism, what's all that about? superiority complex derived from culture, colour, creed or location, easy to attack because it gives a definite target in the obvious, what about the discrimination forced on us by the idiots who couldn't do fuck all in an emergency or crisis because they think that they are superior to the rest of us, discriminating intelligence, discriminating against fair play, discriminating against differences.
 
ZAMB said:
You really think it's funny that Bush has ordered tens of thousands of people killed using illegal weapons - the consequences of which will affect not just the iraqi people, but our soldiers and, ultimately, us.

I know I posted this link [below] before today on another thread but anyone who could 'giggle' about Bush's war on terror has to be severely demented, or on drugs or something.

Let me explain the "giggle test" to you - again - it means that the claim made defies reality, that it is incredulous, that it has no merit, that it is ridiculous to the point of giggling. To suggest that I was saying that it is funny that people die is a horrible misunderstanding of the already defined metaphor and/or a sloppy allegation on your part.

ZAMB said:
Will you still find it funny, or deny that it's genocide, after reading this

Please define genocide for me. I've already provided the statute where the definition I'm using can be found... to make your life easier - here's a link to the post with the relevent statute - http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4737008&postcount=10

I await your clarification of what you consider genocide because the assertion does not pass the giggle test when you apply the definition I already noted.


ZAMB said:
As for the Gitmo prisoners, chances are that many of them will be disappeared to these other prisons around the world that Bush has had built. I don't understand how anyone can be so blase about the effects of torture after what happened in WW2. My dad, like thousands of others, was taken prisoner by the Japanese and spent years being tortured. It changed his life [and then ours] for ever. He couldn't express any emotion apart from fits of uncontrollable anger. I don't think I ever saw him smile.
So giggle about that, you heartless berk - these people all have families - and many of them were sold to the US for $1,000 each after being kidnapped by our noble allies, the Northern Alliance, to whom they were merely a commodity.

The assertion that the prisoners in Gitmo are being tortured has been made, investigated. As I noted prior - you're really just rehashing this thread again - US Senators who oppose GW, his war on terror and the detention of prisoners in Cuba were unable to come back from their visit with any evidence to assert charges of torture - and believe - they wanted to find it.

As for priosoners being taken to other countries. 1) you must be sure to unerstand that this procedure was one initiated by Clinton not Bush - he's just using an already established policy sowith that regard - aim your anger in the right area 2) that those foreign detentions are not subject to any kind of transparency is deeply troubling and although I don't sure your apparent certainty that unspeakable horrors are being committed either by or for or at the direction of Americans I can agree that the policy requires either our complete disengagement or transparency to ensure that there is nothing nasty going on - so you've no beef with me on that and you needn't attempt to suggest or think I'm defendiong such a program - I'm not and won't.
 
Back
Top Bottom