If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Cuba Travel Ban
In article ,
mrtravel wrote: Go Fig wrote: In article , mrtravel wrote: Go Fig wrote: They are to be humanely treated. If they are POWs they MUST indicate provide their surname, first names, rank, birth date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. Many of those in Gitmo have refused to do so... a violation of CG and POW status. Are you saying that anyone who gives this information will then be considered to be a POW? Have they been told this? Hardly, but it is part of the requirements to get the POW status, I have already listed some of the others. It is not a one-way street. Again, these requirements were instituted to protect innocent civilians during an armed engagement I don't understand. If revealing the info won't get them POW status That alone won't, but without it they can be considered unlawful belligerents. What is so hard to understand, there is a list of requirements, of which, one of them is to provide this info. and it is a requirement by the Geneva Convention to get POW status, then why did you bring the refusal of "many" to give this information? It goes to the determination of POW status without the need for a tribunal, because there can be "no doubt" if they are unwilling to provide this mandated info. They are not POWs. jay Fri, Nov 28, 2003 -- Legend insists that as he finished his abject... Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move." |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Cuba Travel Ban
Go Fig writes
That's because you're a citizen of a country which has a regular army in the accepted sense. The GC casts a wider net: 4.A.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." (Note no mention of the four tests in 4.A.2). 4.A.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." You think this is the case with regards to the Talliban, who had been in armed control of the country for years ? Afghanistan is stuffed full of heavily armed locals with tribal rather than national allegiance who can be counted on to pick up a weapon and resist an invader. These would be covered by 4.A.6. Armed forces under the control of the Taliban would be covered by 4.A.1. This applies irrespective of whether they pass the four tests outlined in 4.A.2. Irregular militia are covered if they pass the four tests outlined in 4.A.2. But according to the GC, whether the detainees are entitled to POW status is for the "competent tribunal" to decide. (Amnesty International is of the opinion that a US court would be acceptable as a "competent tribunal".) Hardly an authoritative body. The U.S. has said any tribunal will be made up of 3 officers. That would be in line with 1997 US military regulations and past US practice. You do know that the U.S. is not a party to the additional protocol added to the 4th CG in 1977. Specifically Protocol 1 Article 75 that enumerates 'due process.' Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm specifically referring to the 3rd Geneva Convention 12 August 1949. Until the "competent tribunal" has ruled, the GC stipulates that the detainees must be treated as POWs. From Article 5, 3rd GC: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." if that is now your argument, fine, we can debate that. Al Queda in there own words, say they will not fight according to conventional laws of war. According to Human Rights Watch, Al Queda detainees would have to pass the four tests outlined in 4.A.2. If they failed these tests, they would not be eligible for POW status. Unfortunately we don't know whether any of the detainees (Taliban, Al Queda or otherwise) are eligible for POW status, as they haven't yet been assessed by a competent tribunal. This goes against past US practice and statements of position, for example In 1987, then-Deputy Legal Advisor to the U.S. State Department, Michael Matheson, stated that: "We [the United States] do support the principle that, should any doubt arise as to whether a person is entitled to combatant status, he be so treated until his status has been determined by a competent tribunal, as well as the principle that if a person who has fallen into the power of an adversary is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried for an offense arising out of the hostilities, he should have the right to assert his entitlement before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated." They are to be humanely treated. If they are not assessed to be POWs, then they come under the 4th Geneva Convention for the protection of civilians. There are no cracks in the GC through which they can fall; they must come under either GC3 or GC4. If they are POWs they MUST indicate provide their surname, first names, rank, birth date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. Many of those in Gitmo have refused to do so... a violation of CG and POW status. 17. "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status." .... but although his privileges can be restricted, he's still a POW. Article 7 says that one can't renounce one's rights as a POW. You are aware that the overwhelming number of people detained are in the custody of the Afghans at Shiburghan, not in U.S. custody. Do you not care about their rights... reminds me of the treatment Palestinians get in Jordan... it is strange that is never talked about in European circles. Perhaps those people are just 'statistics.' I'm fully aware of how the Afghans treat their prisoners. One major problem in Afghanistan is that the government have little control over the country outside of Kabul. Another major problem is that many of the locals have a tradition of inflicting unbelievable brutality on their prisoners. It was like that when my father did his compulsory military service in the area in 1945. It's still like that now. The above is not to excuse the treatment they hand out to their prisoners, but it will be a long hard haul to get them to raise their game. -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Cuba Travel Ban
Go Fig writes
I don't understand. If revealing the info won't get them POW status That alone won't, but without it they can be considered unlawful belligerents. What is so hard to understand, there is a list of requirements, of which, one of them is to provide this info. and it is a requirement by the Geneva Convention to get POW status, then why did you bring the refusal of "many" to give this information? It goes to the determination of POW status without the need for a tribunal, because there can be "no doubt" if they are unwilling to provide this mandated info. They are not POWs. By my reading of GC this isn't correct. Article 17 says that a POW can be penalised for failing to give this information, but his POW status can't be revoked. -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Cuba Travel Ban
In article ,
Simon Elliott wrote: Go Fig writes I don't understand. If revealing the info won't get them POW status That alone won't, but without it they can be considered unlawful belligerents. What is so hard to understand, there is a list of requirements, of which, one of them is to provide this info. and it is a requirement by the Geneva Convention to get POW status, then why did you bring the refusal of "many" to give this information? It goes to the determination of POW status without the need for a tribunal, because there can be "no doubt" if they are unwilling to provide this mandated info. They are not POWs. By my reading of GC this isn't correct. Article 17 says that a POW can be penalised for failing to give this information, but his POW status can't be revoked. I stand corrected. What is absolutely clear is they must carry their weapons openly and probably have an insignia to gain POW status. POW status is not a Right, it is a reward that has been shown to protect innocent civilians. Additionally, even those under article 4 may be restricted for security reasons, especially since hostilities are still ongoing. Even if the U.S. provided them with an insignia, do you think they would have used them... it is not about time or economics... it is desired behavior and their leaders have as much. jay Fri, Nov 28, 2003 -- Legend insists that as he finished his abject... Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move." |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Cuba Travel Ban
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:39:01 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
In article , devil wrote: On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:15:38 -0800, Go Fig wrote: In article , Simon Elliott wrote: There are British citizens in Guantanamo. The US has stated that they are not prisoners of war. No charges have been preferred. Since they are neither criminals nor POWs, they now need to be returned to the UK. Doesn't their behavior prevent them from being classified as POWs ? *By whom?* Due process? Or is that a privilege reserved for US citizen? To prevent innocents from being hurt or killed, the desire of the GC. You should not reward illegal combatants with POW status. So, are you saying that you don't believe in due process? Or merely that it should be reserved to US citizens? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Visit the new World Travel Index! | Gordon Boyd | Africa | 2 | February 29th, 2004 09:21 AM |
Cuba Travel Ban | john | Air travel | 24 | November 12th, 2003 01:47 PM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | November 9th, 2003 10:09 AM |
[NEWS]: Senate Approves Easing of Curbs on Cuba Travel | James Anatidae | Air travel | 13 | October 26th, 2003 07:14 PM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | October 10th, 2003 09:44 AM |