Depends on the law, doesn't it?

Post #25,162 by Another Scott 1/22/02 4:08:10 PM Reply	Depends on the law, doesn't it? Hi BP, You don't have the right to know who has been accused of a crime. You have a right to know who has been convicted. I think most of the US tabloid TV "news" programs would be out of business if they weren't able to find out who was indicted, accused, etc. Enron? What's legal WRT the detainees depends on what the applicable laws are, IMO. [link\|http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020128-195299,00.html\|Time] magazine story. At the heart of the matter is a question of legality. The Pentagon has resisted calling the detainees prisoners of war, preferring the terms unlawful combatants or battlefield detainees. It's easy to see why. Under the Geneva Convention, those holding true POWs are bound to release them at the end of hostilities; but that is the last thing the U.S. wants to do with men who may be al-Qaeda operatives. Moreover, by convention (though the law seems to be murky here) POWs don't need to tell their captors anything other than their name, rank, serial number and birthday. But for Washington, the whole point of the detention is to conduct interrogations and thus head off new acts of terrorism. The Geneva Convention does contemplate that some irregular forces captured in battle need not be considered POWs. That may well apply to members of al-Qaeda, a free-floating band of terrorists. But not all of those at Gitmo are al-Qaeda men. Some--the Pentagon won't say how many--were members of the Taliban and presumably thought they were part of the Afghan army. Are they POWs? Washington says no, because the Taliban had no clear chain of command and was not a legitimate government. That may be so; unfortunately, as Amnesty International has pointed out, under the Geneva Convention the Pentagon has no business making such a determination. Those who fall into the enemy's hands are entitled to POW status until a "competent tribunal" has determined their status. In the case of those in Cuba, that hasn't happened. More curious still is the matter of the prisoners' ultimate fate. Rumsfeld has laid out four options: a military trial, a trial in U.S. criminal courts, return to their home countries for prosecution, or continued detention "while additional intelligence is gathered." The last seems a distinct possibility; the Pentagon plans to build 2,000 cells at Camp X-Ray. "This will be a big deal down there for at least two years, guaranteed," says Army Lieut. General B.B. Bell, who commands Fort Hood, Texas, the base from which military police have been deployed to Cuba. But it's hard to find a justification for such detention in the Geneva Convention or anywhere else. Leaving the prisoners "indefinitely beyond the reach of any legal regime," said the Economist last week, "would put America--pre-eminently a nation of laws--itself outside the law." Legitimate questions about these detainees and the applicable law are being raised. I hope (and expect) Rumsfeld and others to reasonably quickly come to some decision which is consistent with our laws and treaty obligations. Cheers, Scott.
Post #25,168 by bepatient 1/22/02 4:49:33 PM Reply	Its ok for... ...tabloids to find things out and report them...they just need to make sure they're accurate...because if they aren't they are liable to be sued...and have been many times. They do NOT...however...have the right to walk up and be handed a list of those accused...which is what is being demanded at this point. There are legitimate questions about this entire conflict and how to apply the Geneva Convention. That seems to be the focus of the Time piece. Some of these detainees could be prisoners of war, some legitimate continuing threats and currnet criminals...and some very innocent folks caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorting that out will be a difficult task. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,193 by Brandioch 1/22/02 6:46:27 PM Reply	Which is the issue. "There are legitimate questions about this entire conflict and how to apply the Geneva Convention." Not really. Are they POW's or not? If not, what are they? Define what they are and you have the answer to how they will be treated. "Sorting that out will be a difficult task." And all the US has to do is to show that it has a plan on how to sort them and is progressing with that plan. It's the indefinate incarceration that seems to be the problem. Not to mention the treatment of the prisoners.
Post #25,202 by Ashton 1/22/02 8:15:59 PM Reply	Also___ we used to have another saying Pre-Ashcroft Justice delayed is justice denied. I would suppose that to mean, in context here: you may not hold indefinitely! someone under the rubric, ummm we haven't quiiite made up our minds what we are going to call this creature -- maybe next year we will. Maybe not. But then, it's just a Principle so - it's malleable, especially where it's inconvenient. For the undecisive. A.
Post #25,203 by Ashton 1/22/02 8:26:45 PM Reply	Sly LRPD: IWETHEY's Terrible Horde of Eponymic Yammerers. If we call someone an Unclassifiable Individual, can we escape all those inconvenient Principles.. One More Time ? Huh? Huh? Can We Please, Mr. Scalia.?. OK.... Mr. Thomas? Ari [Watch! what you Say!] Fleischer? Well then - Dubya [All our Texa-cuted prisoners were guilty!] - whatcha say, Boss? He just gave a guard the finger..
Post #25,210 by bepatient 1/22/02 10:14:41 PM Reply	Issues The Geneva Convention was written to deal with armed conflict between sovereign states. So...members of the Taliban >may< be classified as prisoners of war >if< the Taliban government is recognized as such. Members of the Al Qaeda network are NOT prisoners associated with a conflict between sovereign states...Geneva does not apply. Now..you present "indefinite incarceration" as if its already happened. Gitmo's been in operation for a whole week...infinity to some I guess. Like it or not...Geneva was not written to cover this scenario. I will expect you to have a problem with this...because this situation is NOT binary. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,265 by Brandioch 1/23/02 12:27:08 PM Reply	By way of comparision. How long can the cops hold you without charging you? "So...members of the Taliban >may< be classified as prisoners of war >if< the Taliban government is recognized as such." But it will be the US who is deciding whether to "recognize" the Taliban as a "legitimate" government of Afghanistan. So, why haven't we decided that yet? Is there some more information that needs to be processed? Or is the legitimacy of the Taliban "government" up before an international vote? Hmmmmmmmmm? "Members of the Al Qaeda network are NOT prisoners associated with a conflict between sovereign states...Geneva does not apply." Fine, but not all the prisoners are Al Qaeda, are they? Or are you saying they are? If you're saying they are, then why did you say the first thing you said? "Like it or not...Geneva was not written to cover this scenario." Actually, it can cover this situation. The only questions arising are because the US isn't "recognizing" this as a legitimate war. "I will expect you to have a problem with this...because this situation is NOT binary." Once again, retreat to the personal attacks when you see your "logic" failing. Let me make it easy on you. Why don't you post what the POSSIBLE classifications of these prisoners COULD BE. Then tell me which of the Geneva Conventions apply to each category and why. I'm going to bet that you won't do this. The reason for this is because you don't know what you're talking about.
Post #25,267 by drewk 1/23/02 12:40:53 PM Reply	Try a little research But it will be the US who is deciding whether to "recognize" the Taliban as a "legitimate" government of Afghanistan. So, why haven't we decided that yet? Is there some more information that needs to be processed? Or is the legitimacy of the Taliban "government" up before an international vote? Hmmmmmmmmm? I'm getting tired of the snide hypothetical questions. This issue has been decided by an international "vote." The Taliban are not recognized by the United Nations as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They never have been. So while the argument has been made that some of the Taliban fighters may have believed they were fighting for the standing army of a legitimate nation, there is no question that international consensus already exists on this. The only "more information that needs to be processed" is by you. Why don't you post what the POSSIBLE classifications of these prisoners COULD BE. 1. Soldiers in the standing army of a legitimate government. (None) 2. Incorrectly believed they were in the first category. (Probably some) 3. Members of a guerilla, revolutionary force which has, for the past several years, maintained control of a nation. (U.N. consensus) 4. Members of a trans-national organization providing support to members of the third category; in lay terms "international terrorists". (Al-Queda) 5. Mercenaries and assorted thugs; criminals for hire. (Probably some) 6. Innocent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Possibly some) We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,287 by Brandioch 1/23/02 1:25:56 PM Reply	Thank you, Drew. Although those questions were directed at Bill because he is the one that lacks the facts. But, since you've decided to step in for him, perhaps you can also complete the task I assigned to him. You've listed the possible categories of the individuals, yet you've not referenced the applicable sections of the Geneva Conventions. Please do so at this time.
Post #25,289 by boxley 1/23/02 1:29:50 PM Reply	US Law suffices [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/81/sections/section_1653.html\|who are they?] thanx, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #25,301 by Brandioch 1/23/02 2:27:33 PM Reply	Allow me to post the text of that. "Whoever, being a citizen or subject of any foreign state, is found and taken on the sea making war upon the United States, or cruising against the vessels and property thereof, or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life." "found and taken on the sea" Afghanistan is a sea?
Post #25,305 by boxley 1/23/02 2:44:08 PM Reply	what part of OR do you have trouble with :) OR of the citizens of the same(US) Note the provisions of US law that declare an aircraft to be a vessel, hence the term air piracy, etc [link\|http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/termugniyah.htm\|wanted poster] note how many times the word piracy appears. Lack of water is not a limitation. thanx, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #25,314 by Brandioch 1/23/02 3:20:51 PM Reply	No problem. "Whoever, being a citizen or subject of any foreign state, is found and taken on the sea making war upon the United States, or cruising against the vessels and property thereof, or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life." Yep, one long sentence. The part you quoted seems to refer to acts of piracy against US citizens. "upon the United States" "or cruising against the vessles and property thereoff" "or of the citizens of the same" (I'm taking "the same" to mean US) So, anyone found and captured on the sea while raiding US citizens can be imprisoned for life as a pirate. In other words, the hijackers could be considered "pirates" (allow air instead of sea), but the other people in Afghanistan wouldn't be.
Post #25,320 by marlowe 1/23/02 3:37:40 PM Reply	Aaaaargh, me hearties! I think it's reasonable to say that the Taliban were accessories both before and after the fact to certain instances of air piracy last September. They aided and abetted big time. But if anyone wants to be pedantic, you can say air piracy isn't really piracy because they don't have peg legs or parrots on their shoulders. And then there's software piracy... Here's a question. Those guards at the Nazi death camps. Did they qualify as soldiers under the Geneva convention? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,321 by boxley 1/23/02 3:44:35 PM Reply	Yes they did and were treated as POW's My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #25,298 by drewk 1/23/02 2:14:03 PM Reply	[Sigh] As has been pointed out here already, the Geneva Convention was written to apply to nations' armies.* This being the case, it is generally accepted that the Convention is out of date with modern realities. Even so, it is the most widely recognized set of principles. And the difficulty for the U.S. administration is that they must, as a practical matter, not just abide by applicable international law but also be seen to be doing so. Unfortunately, there is no obvious, compelling resolution to the question of which articles of the Convention apply, if any, and to whom. This is a question for lawyers to answer after reasoned debate, which obviously conflicts with the exigencies of ongoing conflict. The question of "what is the legal thing" is not the same as "what is the right thing" or even "what is the most nearly-right thing", in this case as in most others. The balancing act is to try to find the "most nearly-right thing" without in the process commiting any violations of what will, in retrospect, be found to be the "legal thing." * There is a clause proposed in the 40's and not generally ratified until decades later that eliminates the distinction between military and civilian combatants. Interestingly, neither the U.S. nor Afghanistan (U.N. recognized regime nor Taliban) have ratified this clause. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,303 by Brandioch 1/23/02 2:37:30 PM Reply	Not completely true. There are a number of articles in the Geneva Conventions. "This being the case, it is generally accepted that the Convention is out of date with modern realities." That is very strange. I was taught it when I was in the Army and no one told me it was out of date. "And the difficulty for the U.S. administration is that they must, as a practical matter, not just abide by applicable international law but also be seen to be doing so." Yes, this is the problem the current administration has. "Unfortunately, there is no obvious, compelling resolution to the question of which articles of the Convention apply, if any, and to whom." Actually, there is. The troops captured are POW's and should be treated as such. It's only unclear when our government wants it to be unclear. (Yes, there are terrorists and associates in the group collected. These need to be identified as such and treated as such.) "This is a question for lawyers to answer after reasoned debate, which obviously conflicts with the exigencies of ongoing conflict." I don't see how that conflicts with the ongoing conflict. If anything it would seem to me to be mandated. We have to go through the prisoners and find the terrorists and SEGREGATE them. That is one of the FIRST things you're taught in the military. "The question of "what is the legal thing" is not the same as "what is the right thing" or even "what is the most nearly-right thing", in this case as in most others." I don't think that anyone would have a problem with us doing "the right thing". Oh, unless by "the right thing" you mean an illegal action. "The balancing act is to try to find the "most nearly-right thing" without in the process commiting any violations of what will, in retrospect, be found to be the "legal thing." Actually, as long as you act accourding to the agreed upon treatment of POW's, who could fault it? It is the lowest level of "legal" in this discussion, isn't it? In other words, they are ALL POW's and should be treated as such. Whether we recognize the Taliban as "legitimate" or not. Some of them are also terrorists. These need to be identified and processed. And that is the simplest and easiest way to treat these prisoners.
Post #25,307 by drewk 1/23/02 2:54:21 PM Reply	Ahh, they're POWs That stands for Prisoners of War, right? And when did the Taliban declare war? Did they have the legal right to do that, considering world opinion seems to be that they don't speak for the country? Or did the U.S. declare war? If so, I missed that. And if they are POWs, they have different rights -- some would say, and have -- less rights. You remember the whole Military Tribunal flap, don't you? So if they are prisoners of war, you have no problem with secret military tribunals and the denial of legal counsel? Whoops, isn't that what this whole mess is about, anyway? Either they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, or to the protections afforded by the U.S. legal system to civilian criminals (complicated by the fact that they are non-citizens, and aren't within the borders of the U.S.). So which set of protections so they get? Or more pointedly, which set of protections do you wish for them to forfeit? We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,312 by Brandioch 1/23/02 3:14:35 PM Reply	sigh "War on Terrorism" Does that phrase ring a bell? Was it used by our president? "And if they are POWs, they have different rights -- some would say, and have -- less rights." Less than what? "So if they are prisoners of war, you have no problem with secret military tribunals and the denial of legal counsel? Whoops, isn't that what this whole mess is about, anyway?" If you will recall, my problem with the secret tribunals was that anyone suspected of being a terrorist could be subjected to one. Now, where's the problem with that in dealing with POW's? Or are you saying that a POW can be subjected to a secret military tribunal without having his name released and then be jailed for life or executed? Do you know how POW's are treated? "Either they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, or to the protections afforded by the U.S. legal system to civilian criminals (complicated by the fact that they are non-citizens, and aren't within the borders of the U.S.)." Right, and BOTH of those cases REQUIRE that the names be released. Well they did before September of last year. Didn't this thread get started by someone saying something about names being released? "So which set of protections so they get? Or more pointedly, which set of protections do you wish for them to forfeit?" Didn't you read my previous post? They're POW's. They have all the considerations due to POW's under the Geneva Conventions. We do not conceal the names of POW's. We do not INDEFINATELY incarcerate POW's. (they are returned after the conflict) And so on. Now, they are NOT being charged with any crimes so they are NOT subject to our legal system. Unless they ARE being charged with a crime(s) in which case they DO have the rights spelled out in our legal system. Impartial jury? Speedy trial? Lawyers? What part did I lose you one?
Post #25,315 by drewk 1/23/02 3:29:26 PM Reply	Read your own post "War on Terrorism" So slogans now count as legal proof? Unless congress has declared it, it's not legally a war. Right, and BOTH of those cases REQUIRE that the names be released. Released to whom? Now, they are NOT being charged with any crimes so they are NOT subject to our legal system. Unless they ARE being charged with a crime(s) in which case they DO have the rights spelled out in our legal system. And that's the question BeeP posed. Which way are they going to be handled. And by what precedent do you decide. And are all of them POWs? They don't seem to fall under U.S. civilian law, because they aren't U.S. citizens nor were they in the U.S. They don't seem to fall under Geneva Convention for POWs because they aren't, according to current world opinion, acting as the army of a legitimate nation. Wait, didn't you say: If you will recall, my problem with the secret tribunals was that anyone suspected* of being a terrorist could be subjected to one.* (My emphasis) So it hinges on whether we "suspect" they are a terrorist. But you've demanded a determination of that very fact as a prerequisite to determining how they will be treated. So we aren't allowed to decide how to handle them until we decide if they are terrorists. And we can't call them terrorists until we convict them of something. Which we can't do until we decide how we're going to handle them. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,323 by Silverlock 1/23/02 4:02:10 PM Reply	Weasel words don't suit you Drew. You can generally cut through the BS with ease. What happened here? -quote "War on Terrorism" So slogans now count as legal proof? Unless congress has declared it, it's not legally a war. -endquote I think this would come as a surprise to those citizens who were held as prisoners of war over in southeast asia not so long ago. This is a war. Declared or not, it is most assuredly a war. Just as the conflict in Vietnam was a war even though congress never declared it as such. We held opponenets in that conflict in prisonor of war camps, they did the same to our guys. We gave and expected treatment in accordance with the Geneva conventions. All that aside, If they are not going to be afforded the label "pow", and they aren't going to charged as criminals, then they must be come under the heading of something else. What that is, I have no idea. I think it's ridiculous to consider them anything other than as POWs. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #25,324 by drewk 1/23/02 4:13:28 PM Reply	But that's the exact problem I think it's ridiculous to consider them anything other than as POWs. But when the administration suggested that military tribunals would be used, people went ballistic that these were not appropriate because the people in question weren't military. What does that leave? We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,336 by Brandioch 1/23/02 5:02:02 PM Reply	NO! People went "ballistic" when SECRET military tribunals were declared for people SUSPECTED of being terrorists. In other words, foreign nations, residing in the US could be taken away in the middle of the night and executed. Their names would not be released. Their lawyers would not be notified. No public record of the "trial" would be released. THAT is the problem people had.
Post #25,338 by drewk 1/23/02 5:11:33 PM Reply	Fair enough Their names would not be released. You still haven't answered this one, though. Who should the names be released to, to satisfy this concern? I'm not playing devil's advocate, I really want to know what would satisfy both legal and ethical requirements, without jeopardizing ongoing operations. And, to play a little bit of the advocate, do you really believe that people would be executed before thair names were released? I doubt anyone that believes that is possible for the current administration could be convinced that anything they do is right. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,341 by Brandioch 1/23/02 5:34:11 PM Reply	I said it, but I didn't mean it. "And, to play a little bit of the advocate, do you really believe that people would be executed before thair names were released?" Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say that that could happen. What I meant to say is that foreign nationals living in the US could be taken in the middle of the night and executed without their names being released or the details of their "trial" being available. Are we clear now? Foreign nationals Living in the US Arrested "Tried" Executed All in "secret" and without their names being released. "I doubt anyone that believes that is possible for the current administration could be convinced that anything they do is right." Possibly. Although if you remove the "secret" part and release the names of those arrested (you know, like we already do for our own citizens) then that would pretty much invalidate my position, wouldn't it? "You still haven't answered this one, though. Who should the names be released to, to satisfy this concern? I'm not playing devil's advocate, I really want to know what would satisfy both legal and ethical requirements, without jeopardizing ongoing operations." First off, let me ask you how such COULD jeopardize "ongoing operations". Second, to whom do you release the names? Oh I don't know, maybe the UN? After all, they are citizens of another country. While you're at it, why not hand the names off to InterPol? Along with their fingerprints and photos, maybe? After all, they are "terrorists".
Post #25,343 by bepatient 1/23/02 5:50:00 PM Reply	Seems that the folks at Oxford [link\|http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/01/21012002090135.asp\| understand the issues involved.] Roberts does not believe that the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo are in fact, prisoners of war, a category he says only applies to Taliban soldiers: "Basically [prisoners of war] have to be part of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, and Al-Qaeda is nothing like a state so there's a problem there. Second problem: There has to be a responsible command system, and it's not at all clear what the command system of Al-Qaeda is and whether there's a clear line of responsibility. Thirdly, they have to wear a uniform or insignia -- in fact a uniform and insignia [which can] be seen at a distance. And fourthly, they have to conduct operations in accord with the laws and customs of war. I would question Al-Qaeda on these accounts." You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,352 by Brandioch 1/23/02 6:39:02 PM Reply	If I may. 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. skipped 2. skipped 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. and beyond, skipped.
Post #25,353 by Brandioch 1/23/02 6:44:28 PM Reply	And to clarify 'cause I know you're going to try to be dumb. That is for PRISONERS OF WAR! If they are captured TERRORISTS or belong to a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, then you can refer back to my earlier post: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25303\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25303] Am I the only person here who's memory can trace back more than two posts?
Post #25,395 by bepatient 1/23/02 10:38:00 PM Reply	Good...skip all the parts that make it muddy... ...so as to make it fit better with your binary style. [link\|http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm\|The Convention] 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. B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. ========================================== Adding to the confusion created by those areas highlighted above... After reading through the 140+ articles (again)...I'd be hard pressed to find any violations of the convention...even if we don't think that these folks are covered under it. And while it >does< say we have to do our best to ascertain their identity and provide them with documentation of said id...it doesn't say ANYWHERE that we have to tell Brandioch who they are...only that we must allow them to write their family and must communicate their identity to a Central Information Agency after it has been created. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,423 by TTC 1/24/02 3:04:08 AM Reply	Re: Good...skip all the parts that make it muddy... I believe the criteria was ANY. So if it FITS one criteria, it's POW status, no? Can't understand why you are disagreeing with Brandioch.
Post #25,427 by Brandioch 1/24/02 4:45:16 AM Reply	What was that about binary? "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:" Allow me to trim that a bit so you can understand it. "are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories" Did you get that yet? Maybe I need to trim it a bit more. "ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES" Now, I showed where the matched ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES. Now, the reason I left off the others is because some people of limited mental ability cough Bill Patient cough can't understand such complex concepts. You know of having multiple categories but only requiring one match? So I made it easy on such individuals. "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:" Then I numbered, BUT DID NOT LIST THE CRITERIA for those categories that did not apply. But I did list the criteria FOR THE CATEGORY THAT DID APPLY. So, what does Bill do? He goes out and grabs the criteria for a category THAT DOES NOT APPLY and then shows that it does not apply. Congratulations, Bill, you have certainly shown which of us is limited by binary logic and which of us is not.
Post #25,504 by bepatient 1/24/02 1:40:39 PM Reply	Care to give me a definition of... "regular armed forces?" That's the 1 category that you feel matches. The rest obviously do not. A recognized authority also wonders if these folks fit so neatly into any of these categories. The reality is that they don't fit neatly into any of the catogories. Forcing them into the "regular armed forces" definition is a stretch...but convenient for those who are currently wringing hands at the fact that we have moved these people from harms way (per the Geneva Convention), have the Red Cross observing their conditions (per the Geneva Convention) and are most likely going to report the names of these people to the convening auhtority once it has been created (per the Geneva Convention). NOWHERE does the convention state that Brandioch is required to be informed. NOWHERE does it say that the New York Times has a right to these names. In addition...while we're spending so much time saying they must be protected by the Geneva Convention...would you mind terribly showing me where its been violated to date with respect to these detainees EVEN IF THE CLASSIFICATION OF POW APPLIES? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,522 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:12:17 PM Reply	You have managed to go beyond stupid. "NOWHERE does the convention state that Brandioch is required to be informed. NOWHERE does it say that the New York Times has a right to these names. " Congratulations, you've just stated something that I've never claimed. You've stated it emphatically. The names should be released to the UN (and InterPol would make sense to sort out terrorists). Why would I want the names released to me? What purpose would releasing them to the New York Times serve for their country or their families? Or do you suppose that The New York Times is a common paper in Afghanistan? Bill, I'm revising my opinion of you from "limited mental capabilities" to "functionally illiterate and happy that way".
Post #25,524 by bepatient 1/24/02 2:13:45 PM Reply	Wrong...go to the lower post to see just how wrong. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,528 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:23:00 PM Reply	There's one thing to be said about the functionally illitera illiterate. They're consistent. Bill, for years you have amazed me with your inability to provide references. Instead you always tell me to go look somewhere. Many millions of people have, by now, realized the ability of this medium to provide "links" to supporting materials. Yet you remain elite. You refuse to stoop so low as to provide easy reference for your claims. How many web pages are there out there? Written by how many millions of people? Yet that simple function continues to elude Bill Patient. I know of children of no more than 8 years of age who can manage such tasks. Yet Bill Patient cannot match their capabilities.
Post #25,533 by bepatient 1/24/02 2:38:34 PM Reply	Sorry for underestimating your intelligence. Lower post...meaning the one at the bottom...must have been to much for you. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25515\|Here's a link you can click on...] That should be easy enough for you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,539 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:52:42 PM Reply	You've achieve the level of an 8 year old. Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself. Now we can resume this discussion at the point you've referenced.
Post #25,544 by bepatient 1/24/02 3:05:15 PM Reply	Wow... ...I gave him a link....now he can follow the thread...good Brandi...come get your treat. {pat pat} Thats a good boy. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,547 by Brandioch 1/24/02 3:10:23 PM Reply	Awwww, isn't that cute? It's trying to think.
Post #25,327 by bepatient 1/23/02 4:33:01 PM Reply	It seems that how all this started... ...because this is NOT a "cut and dried" or a "binary" issue. Vietnam was a sovereign nation. Even without the official declaration...it was safe and easy to treat the captives as POWs and apply Geneva. This is NOT the case here. No official declaration. No soveriegn nation. Indeed many captives are not even Afgan...as the Al Q membership included many Saudi and other nations citizens. So...are they POW's in the Geneva sense. No. Is it safe to treat the Taliban membership as such. Probably. How about the members of Al Q. Clearly not...because there is no sovereign backing at all. And what exactly have we done that would even qualify as a violation of Geneva to date? The conflict is not over...so these prisoners can be detained until it is...and if you believe that the "War on Terrorism" slogan qualifies as the declaration...then sit back and relax....cause we're not gonna have to let these guys go for a loooong time. After all...Al Q was just the beginning, right? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,435 by Silverlock 1/24/02 8:09:31 AM Reply	You are flat wrong So...are they POW's in the Geneva sense. No. In the Geneva sense they are to be treated as POWs until determination of status is made. Period. So we are ignoring our duties as signatories to the Geneva convention, acting illegally with respect to the "detainees", and telling the world we are the champions of the rule of law while we ignore the law. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #25,548 by marlowe 1/24/02 3:11:14 PM Reply	Even this much may be overly generous. I won't dispute that the Vietminh were a sovereign nation, albeit a very nasty one. But the Vietcong had no state. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,424 by TTC 1/24/02 3:12:58 AM Reply	Re: Read your own post Question. If this is not a war, is it then an US aggression against Afghanistan when US bombed (and still is) Afghanistan territory? Is it a war or is it not? Make up your mind.
Post #25,316 by marlowe 1/23/02 3:29:26 PM Reply	Find the terrorists and segregate them? From whom, exactly? "Okay, everybody here who's not a terrorist, raise your hand." "Me!!! Am not terrorist!!! Am soldier!!!" "Weren't you threatening to kill any American you can get your hands on and his or her little dog too, a while back?" "What your point???" [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,333 by Brandioch 1/23/02 4:58:10 PM Reply	Tonight on NYPD Marlowe. "Okay guys, I want you to go out and find those bank robbers!" "Chief, how do we find them?" "Yeah, do we just stop people and ask them if they're bank robbers?" "Ha ha ha. Chief is so dumb." "Hey, maybe we can take out an ad in the paper asking the bank robbers to identify themselves." "Ha haha! There's no way we can find them, Chief. We don't even know their names."
Post #25,355 by Ashton 1/23/02 6:59:05 PM Reply	Hey BeeP - please FIX your width box.. it proliferates --

Welcome to IWETHEY!