Guantanamo Bay Detainees Will Finally Be Granted Geneva Rights

Muadibb tell me who made them enemy combatants.

First of all Bush is using his presidential power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely.

In 2001 Bush in order to use methods that are harder than the ones allowed by the Geneva Convention took action and decided that Geneva Convention rights would not apply to Taliban and All Al-qaida members as enemy combatant.

Who decided what these people will fall under was the exclusive rights of the present administration .

To better serve its purpose Cuba was chosen under Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) US courts do not have jurisdiction over non sovereign countries of the US.

Alberto Gonzales alone with John Ashcroft advised the president with this technicality that keeping the detainees in a non US sovereign country and naming then enemy combatant would not entitle them to have any Geneva convention rights.

Because now it seems that after all this could not be actually done under article 3 of the Geneva Convention now the administration is asking Congress to take away or amend article 21 of the UCMJ so the article 3 could be play at.

So it seems that this is all to be done after the facts and years that the Guantanamo detainees have been held with not Geneva Convention rights.

That will make it illegal the more because until now the articles still stand.

To amend any articles now will be deemed illegal because articles or not the laws of war will always applied at home.

In other worlds you can no change the law just to get away with what you don’t like about the Geneva Convention rights

It say very clear that enemy combatant or not they are to be treated humanly.

Now muadibb how can the US do military tribunal on Enemy combatants with no laws and guide line to follow?

They will have to fall under the Geneva convention and the UCMJ laws, that will bring the issue of Why they were denied the rights to begin with.

He can not hold them indefinitely without been charged.

What a mess.!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
The definition of being at War, Only Congress has the power to Declare War. That war as defined by Congress's approval is versus specific countries.

Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since WWII, what they do issue though is called an Authorization For Use of Military Force. They passed one immediately after 9/11 and let me just quote from it real quick.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Link

So as you can see this is defiantly a real war, there is no rule that says wars can only be declared against specific countries and or boundaries. Now, any persons who are captured as part of this war are subject to military jurisdiction.

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
Torture is happening, and has happened in our detainment camps.

Perhaps it is but its not our official policy nor one that we condone, some people may break the guidelines such as the soldiers charged for the Abu Gharib case but again you cant use that to say we knowingly allow people to be tortured. And by the way, I don't know what some of you are expecting but these people are being held in military prisons, as such they will be subject to some form of interrogation, that in itself is not illegal, I get the feeling some of you would even oppose that.

Marg....again...read the section which deals with who are prisoners of war....

Yes, the insurgency and terrorists captured were named "enemy combatants" because they are not "prisoners of war" as defined in the "Geneva Convention"....



[edit on 12-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Thank you for the background marg6043, the link you provided was very attention getting. Have any of the E-mails or memos referenced by the ACLU ever turned up in the public domain? Please pardon me for being a little doubtful here, but the ACLU is known to exaggerate a mite now and then. Was General Miller ever reprimanded? Do we know the names of the FBI agents involved and have they ever brought the subject up again to their superiors or leaked it to the press? Finally, has anyone ever been charged and tried for improper and inhumane treatment of the detainees at GITMO? I'll look into the situation on my own, but it would save time if you have answers to any of the above questions.

ADHDsux4me I'm very close to hitting the ignore button on you. Your arguments are not rational, thoughtful discourse, they are more like emotional outbursts and you fling serious accusations around as if they were nothing. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. You seem willing to take that stance for the detainees, but not for military interrogators or officials of the Bush Administration. I can certainly be persuaded that torture has happened at GITMO and as a direct result of Bush Administration policies & procedures, but I am most definitely not just going to take your word for it.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
ADHDsux4me I'm very close to hitting the ignore button on you. Your arguments are not rational, thoughtful discourse, they are more like emotional outbursts and you fling serious accusations around as if they were nothing. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. You seem willing to take that stance for the detainees, but not for military interrogators or officials of the Bush Administration. I can certainly be persuaded that torture has happened at GITMO and as a direct result of Bush Administration policies & procedures, but I am most definitely not just going to take your word for it.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Astronomer70]

If you'd pardon me Astronomer, I will admit that I am passionate about this subject.

Maybe I do need to cool it down, please understand none of my stance was a personal attack on your character, as this was not my intent.

I just can't believe you haven't heard of these offenses. Where have you been? There are oodles of topics on this subject here on ATS, with plenty of links that show the burden of proof.

I just think the Military takes these impressionable kids and turns them into troopers, with little enough tools to properly deal with a War with no defined BADGUY. The badguys who never wear a uniform to identify themselves.

We really could be torturing innocents, and there are soldiers who object to that treatment, but will not speak up due to fear of reprisal from peers and leadership.

-ADHD

P.S. Astronomer, I would like to extend an Olive Branch of Peace between you and I, you are not bad person you just have a different opinion than I, and I debate fiercely. I will never say your opinion is less important than mine, we all have a voice, and this is this place to use it.

I have to disagree with most of you on here. I don't believe the rights of the Geneva Convention should be extended to the people that are from countries outside of the signing. All other countries should not be pardoned or taken into accordance with something that was strictly written for those involved at the time.

I'm not saying that some sort of accord shouldn't be agreed upon by additional countries, but terrorists don't represent a country, they represent a movement.

No slack from me here, I just don't agree with the current decision.

Originally posted by infinite8
I have to disagree with most of you on here. I don't believe the rights of the Geneva Convention should be extended to the people that are from countries outside of the signing.

I know that is your personal opinion but the Geneva Convention specifically states that if you are a nation that signed the Geneva Conventions, but your enemy hasnt, you are still bound to its requirements.

There is a news article today on this subject:

portal.grandecom.net...

It's a pretty safe bet that Congress is going to pass some sort of leglislation dealing with this issue--not right away, probably in the Fall.

BTW, I have not finished my research into torture at GITMO, but I have uncovered enough credible information to confirm degrading & inhumane treatment. I guess I've been asleep on this issue, or something, because I've recovered articles where the U.S. has admitted it directly to the U.N.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Astronomer70]

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller's name keeps cropping up in association with prisoner abuse both at GITMO and in Iraq. I can't find where any charges have been filed against him yet, or where a letter of reprimand has been included in his official records, but there is no question he has become a liability to the Pentagon and to the Bush Administration.

I'm having a difficult time distinguishing between torture and physical abuse. If anyone has any words of wisdom on this, I'm all ears.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Astronomer70]

Muadibb the name of Enemy combatant was given to the detainees in Guantanamo by executive order of Mr. Bush.

So these detainees would not have Geneva convention rights, Is not actually as part of the Geneva convention rules or guidelines.

It was an executive order issue under the powers the president has when war.

Astronomer the issue now is that the administration is urging congress to pass a legislation that will amend the Geneva convention.

I hope that this will not pass because the present administration can not change laws just because it doesn’t agree with it for personal reasons.

I hope your reply was not directed at me? I clearly stated in the post that you have to take the information with a grain of salt because the information or alledged report might be bogus and the link to the socialist website was meant only to show an example of those bogus claims.

REPLY; I may have overlooked that and, if so, I meant nothing towards you personally.

Astronomer, don't you recall the pictures with "smiling" Private Lyndie Englund, smoking a cigarette and pointing at the prisoners gentials like she was going to shoot them off? That's pretty humiliating.

REPLY: Don't forget the "womens panties on the head" trick. hardly torture, and I submit that there are those in many countries who actually PAY people to do that to them.

Humiliation is not torture. Neither are done for jollies; you use what works. And if it saves one human life in doing so, all the better. All this PC crap-ola burns my butt. If they know what we WON'T do, it gives them hope and comfort.

Everywhere the terrorists/radicals see all the griping about what happened plays right into their hands. I can see it now: One terrorist to another: : You know, Achmed..... if we get captured, even if they know we beheaded one of them, and hung him from a lamp post and burned him (true story), it's.... it's..... I don't know if I can go on. They will put us in a prison, provide us a Koran and Prayer Rug for free; feed us 3 ethnically correct meals a day...... it's terrible. We may have to look at an American womans breasts.

Give me a break......

quote by subz

Hey, wasnt the War on Drugs still raging back in 2000...."

REPLY: Off topic and irrelevant........

".... when the Supreme Court handed Bush his Presidency?

REPLY: 6 recounts, and a $1 Million + investigation by the Miami Herold (no bastion of conservatism, they) showed Bush won every time, and not one single Black person was "disenfranchised." Why do people flog dead horses?

Does that mean that the Supreme Court had no authourity to halt the recount?

REPLY: Again, irrelevant/off-topic, but I'll bite: The Supreme Court forced FloriDUH to stick to it's own state laws, and also prevented recounts ONLY IN CERTAIN COUNTIES, meaning Democratic counties only.

Unfortunately, they didn't bring charges against Algore's lawyers who prevented our off-shore military their right to vote.



[edit on 13-7-2006 by zappafan1]

quote by subz

I know that is your personal opinion but the Geneva Convention specifically states that if you are a nation that signed the Geneva Conventions, but your enemy hasnt, you are still bound to its requirements.

REPLY: No. I just read the entire thing two days ago.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Unfortunately, they didn't bring charges against Algore's lawyers who prevented our off-shore military their right to vote.

The democrats are hoping that republicans show the same zeal in insuring our overseas military's right to vote is protected in the 2006 election. However it is more likely that the republicans will be the obstacle attempting to prevent the votes of our military from being counted. It's about getting elected, neither party gives a damn about anyones right to vote.

Originally posted by marg6043
Muadibb the name of Enemy combatant was given to the detainees in Guantanamo by executive order of Mr. Bush.

So tell us Marg, what would you have wanted to call them?

Originally posted by marg6043
So these detainees would not have Geneva convention rights, Is not actually as part of the Geneva convention rules or guidelines.
..............

Well according to accords in the Geneva Convention, insurgents and terrorists are not prisoners of war because, 1. They don't always have their weapons in the open. 2. They disguise themselves as civilians and have used civilians as shields. 3. They don't respect the rules of war. Beheading people is not something which is to be done to "real prisoners of war", hence the insurgents/terrorists are not prisoners of war, hence the same laws which protect prisoners of war should not protect enemy combatants.

Muaddib the problem with these parishioners as enemy combatants is that they can not be in military tribunals because they abide by Geneva convention rules.

That is the whole problem with this issue.

You can not give them trials without Geneva rights.

When Bush kept them as enemy combatants it was not problem.

But is also illegal to have then indefinitely with no charges.

I guess that at the time Bush was not thinking of what was going to happen in the near future with the fate of the detainees.

Now is an issue and can not be taken lightly because it can have repercussion with international laws.

Now congress has been pushed to amend some of the rules.

Originally posted by zappafan1
No. I just read the entire thing two days ago.

Huh? Are you infinite incognito? I was specifically responding to his post. What are you talking about?

quote by df1

The democrats are hoping that republicans show the same zeal in insuring our overseas military's right to vote is protected in the 2006 election. However it is more likely that the republicans will be the obstacle attempting to prevent the votes of our military from being counted.

REPLY: Pure speculation on your part, and the Right were the ones fighting to get their votes counted..... no matter who they were for.