It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guantanamo Bay Detainees Will Finally Be Granted Geneva Rights

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
After years of debating the status of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay in connection with the war on terror the US will finally grant them international rights based on the Geneva Convention. This mandate also applies to all other prisoners in the War on Terror held in US installation across the globe.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush.

"We want to fulfill the mandates of justice, making sure we find a way properly to try people who have been plucked off the battlefields who are not combatants in the traditional sense."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It is good to see this administration is finally coming to its senses and deciding to play by the rules. Of course I was never in doubt that the prisoners were being treated humanely, America probably has the best standard in the world for holding inmates IMO. Of course these men were being held of certain rights and thanks to people who fight for justice these men have been granted those rights by our leaders.

I just hope we never have to deal with this kind of fiasco again.

Related News Links:
www.unhchr.ch
news.yahoo.com
www.npr.org
en.wikipedia.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 7/11/2006 by DYepes]




posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Finaly something the NY Times got right. Why others think this is a new story is beyond me because there is no real change of policy here at all, just clarification.
to fill up tomorrows papers.




The Pentagon memo, issued last Friday and released today, orders that all detainees be treated in compliance with what is known as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a passage that requires humane treatment and a minimum standard of judicial protections for prisoners.

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said today that the Pentagon memo was “not really a reversal of policy’’ because detainees were already being treated humanely. A top Pentagon lawyer also insisted, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, that the memo “doesn’t indicate a shift in policy.”

NY Times



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Shots, do you really think the administration is going to come out and say they were wrong, and trying to follow illegal policies, and that they have seen the light?

No. It's called political posturing, I'm sure you know all about it.

Back to reality...there is a fundamental change. The military tribunal system as set up by Mr. Bush & Co. is illegal. As well, it is mandatory on the military to treat suspected terrorists in accordance with the Geneva convention.

That seems like a fundamental change to me.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Illegal policies?... Why because the "enemy combatants" were not viewed as "prisoners of war"?.....

humm...i wonder why insurgents and terrorists were not viewed as "prisoners of war"....


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.

www.unhchr.ch...

Oh wait a second...they must dress differently than civilians, they must carry their arms openly at all times, and they must respect the laws and customs of war..... That's why...

[edit on 11-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
So finally US admit that they went over their head denying Geneva convention rights to detainees in time of war

Well kind of late for a change of hart.

Remember Muaddib that the definition of enemy combatant was made by the US to avoid treating the detainees with the Geneva convention rights.

Terrorist or not they were under the custody of the US that always respected and upheld the Geneva convention at least until the present administration decided to give it another definition for personal purposes.


Just another blunder.


[edit on 11-7-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I do not believe we have heard the end of this controversy yet. The U.S. Congress is quite likely going to pass some sort of leglislation defining the status of the detainees in question and that leglislation is very likely to restrict, or modify, the judicial rights the detainees would have been entitled to under the 3rd Geneva Convention. Amongst other things, I fully expect the crime of criminal conspiracy to be a chargeable offense.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
In my view the detainees at Guantanamo have always had basic human rights; as such this is nothing but a formal declaration so to speak. BTW people should keep in mind that this change only effects the detainees at Guantanmo, or detainees held by the US Military, others held by the CIA, well, use your imagination.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Illegal policies?... Why because the "enemy combatants" were not viewed as "prisoners of war"?.....

humm...i wonder why insurgents and terrorists were not viewed as "prisoners of war"....

Your Supreme Court says otherwise Muaddib.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
In my view the detainees at Guantanamo have always had basic human rights

You've got to be joking. These people have been tortured. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt torture a big afront to human rights?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Can you define "torture" for me? By my definition they have not been tortured.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Torture: anguish of body or mind

These people were tortured. You can subscribe to the revisionist neocon interpretation of what constitutes torture but you'll be confined to said cabal. What the people detained for years at Gitmo were ordered put through fits every legal description of torture.


The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. www.ccr-ny.org...

yahoo news


"This report authoritatively documents the Bush Administration's systematic human rights abuses at Guantanamo. I think the torture and abuse detailed here will shock Congress and the American public because it reveals a lawless, immoral and ineffective detention facility and undermines the administration's increasingly desperate attempts to lie about what is happening down there," said CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman.

yahoo news

[edit on 12/7/06 by subz]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Anguish? You’re using the standard of torture set by an organization who probably considers the very prospect of interrogation as torture. I have yet to see hard evidence that shows the detainees at Guantanamo have been tortured, and I don’t consider claims from certain organization as proof of anything but their own beliefs.


Rights (CCR) published the first report citing declassified primary accounts from current detainees and their American attorneys to detail torture and inhumane treatment by U.S. officials at Guantánamo Bay prison.


Hmm… I wonder, does the term conflict of interest apply here?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The definition of torture has become a joke when it comes to the US explanations of what they do and why they do it.

It seems that when it comes to the US Torture is just in the eye of the beholder.

To me any mistreatment be verbally, mentally or physical at the hands of another person that is holding the other against their will is torture.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I have read about allegations of torture on various blogs and in the news (when it comes to the detainees in GITMO), but to my recollection there have been no charges actually proven yet. That could be because the authorities at GITMO will not let such charges be filed by the detainees, or it could be because, as the military says, no torture has been committed. I don't know where the truth actually lies here; however, I suspect that many of the allegations stem from the lack of access to the facilities there and from the secrecy imposed by the military (and others) on how some of the actual charges against the detainees have been handled.

Unless I am mistaken, there are less than 500 detainees in GITMO that would be covered by the recent SCOTUS ruling. That doesn't mean I condone torture because the number of people is small (even one would be one to many). It simply means the U.S. only intended to use special military tribunal judicial procedures in a small number of cases.

marg6043 I don't really think anyone, either inside or outside the government, regards the definition and/or use of torture as a joke.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Westpoint it says right there in the first paragraph that this extends to all prisoners held around the world in us military installations, not just Gauntanamo Bay.

Well anyways, like I said its good we got this thing going right. Its what the American people wanted, I am American, I wanted it and it has happened. Glad to see politicians listening for once.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
And as I said, "BTW people should keep in mind that this change only effects the detainees at Guantanmo, or detainees held by the US Military,"…. Perhaps I shouldn't have said only, but regardless it says nothing about detainees held by non DoD agencies such as the CIA.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Westpoint, those detainees do not exist, and there is no evidence to suggest such an accusation... please move along now and pretend we never brought it up.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Yes of course I forgot, *You didn’t see anything*, one only wonders where all the top catches are held.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hmm… I wonder, does the term conflict of interest apply here?


I was wondering the very same thing. All statements were made strictly by ATTYs and their clients meaning it is just their word without collaboration of the alleged incidents and let us not forget good old Rule 18 or is it 17 of their training manual that says they must claim they have been tortured.


Prisoner statements were made to counsel during in-person interviews conducted at Guantánamo beginning in the fall of 2004.

Source




1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
Source




Hmm didn't Saddam insist the very same thing


Their instruction manual telling them to lie says it all. these are just allegations until proven otherwise.

Does anyone by chance know where one can find the original text of the 2nd Geneva convention before article 3 was changed? I have tried to find the original text before the change in 1949 but so far most sites reference the 2nd convention but the text always links to the 3rd Geneva convention text and not the 2nd.

The reason I am asking is because as I understand it the US did not ratify all changes to the convention. (I could be wrong)

Reasons given at the time as I recall, the 3rd contained references to the use of phosphorus which the US objected to its restriction.

[edit on 7/12/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

"These people were tortured. You can subscribe to the revisionist neocon interpretation of what constitutes torture but you'll be confined to said cabal. What the people detained for years at Gitmo were ordered put through fits every legal description of torture."


REPLY: Gitmo is not an example of "torture", but one of "degrading treatment", which are vastly different. This has been gone over SOOOO many times. Putting a womans panties on someone's head is not "torture." Most all of the things that happened at Gitmo is no worse, and in some cases less than what I've seen happen at college "hazing" events.



I suspect that many of the allegations stem from the lack of access to the facilities there and from the secrecy imposed by the military


REPLY: Everyone should read what Muaddib posted, as it quite clearly explains that terrorists do not fall under the rules as set forth in the GC. If you can't understand that explanation you have no basis for anything you say or think... or "feel."
The "lack of access" you mention is crap-ola, as the international Red Cross, and many others have been there, and have an open invitation to come again. None of them have found evidence of "torture."

Subz: We are not signatories of the Declaration of Human Rights and as such are not bound to follow it (as no-one should agree with ANYTHING the UN comes up with). Likewise, the terrorists were not signatories of the Geneva Convention, and as such are not afforded it's protection. Do people really need pictures of some sort to make it any clearer?


Rights (CCR) published the first report citing declassified primary accounts from current detainees and their American attorneys to detail torture and inhumane treatment by U.S. officials at Guantánamo Bay prison.


REPLY: This is to be expected, as Islam says it's honorable to lie to Infidels.


"....Its what the American people wanted


REPLY: There are also many who think torture is fine if it prevents even one American citizen or soldier from dying. Polls after 9-11 showed that 67% said torture was OK if it helped prevent attacks on America. (no, I can't link to it because it's now in their member only section).

As usual during the past couple of decades, the Supreme Court thinks it has the final say, which they don't.

By the way.... most of the "top catches", as depicted by the "deck of cards" are DEAD.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
So are we attempting to justify torture as a means to whatever end? Please Zappafan just answer me that. Are you attempting to justify torture on another human being? Revenge is not the answer to anything. Are you attempting to justify terrorist acts of torture to prisoners of war, cuz guess what these people are prisoners, and the war is the one on terror. That right there defines them as a prisoner of war in the most literal sense possible.

Regardless of the status of their detainment, do you believe torture can be justified on another human being? Cuz if the answer is yes, I am going to have to do alot of praying man.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join