The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Status
Not open for further replies.

marmaladePRO

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2001
835
6
48
Medicine Hat Alberta, Canada
Visit site
✟1,720.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
hey strathy it's late here in Canada eh? thanks for posting the link to the G convention info... it's a thick read, thats why i have a lawyer :D i'm not trying to be argumentative so please don't take any offense here kay?
i agree with your first statement, with what little i am aware of...
your second statement though... one line i couldn't help but copy for posting is this single description of the *enemy* applicable: "provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." i ahve no doubt they were carting around large guns and such... but that second portion of the entry might give lawyers and lawmakers fudgeing room, don't you think?
and your third statement "I do not know, since I haven't been there. " nor have i, Praise God :)
 
Upvote 0

strathyboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2002
761
2
Visit site
✟1,376.00
To TheBear...

You only quoted from the second part of the definition of a Prisoner of War. I'll just post all of it here. Apologies for the length.

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.

I am positive that those held in Guantanamo will satisfy one of these definitions.

To marmalade...

Where did you find that definition for "enemy"? I couldn't find it (not surprising considering how hard it is to actually read this thing :) ). Are you sure that's not just one of the definitions given in the convention?
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Further to be treated as prisoners of war....

"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."

Still no mention of terrorists.


John
 
Upvote 0

marmaladePRO

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2001
835
6
48
Medicine Hat Alberta, Canada
Visit site
✟1,720.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
*enemy* was my word (hence the little stars, i'll communicate clearer next time :) )
the translation i was refferring to is listed on your post as #6 "provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." there is that respect word again...
clarifiacation for me please: were the prisoners in discussion captured on the battle field as part of a military exercise per say? or were they apprehended individually or in small groups?
thanks,
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you can show me where individuals or groups, who secretly plot to, and carry out murderous mayhem on unarmed civilians, I will re-consider my poisition. And, with all the political scholars of the world, do you honestly think any country would willingly disregard the Geneva Convention, if it applied, and think they would get away with it?


The bottom line, my friend, is that these thugs are willing and ready to rejoin terrorist cells throughout the world. They have information and plans that could possibly be used to kill your family and your countrymen! What will you say to the mother who asks you, "Why? How could you let them go without getting any information about their plans and whereabouts? Why didn't you do everything you could to get information out of them?", as she lays over the chopped in half, corpse of her son.

What are you going to tell her? "Well, I'm sorry Madam, I couldn't have done anything more to prevent this. I took the moral 'high ground', and let those prisoners go without finding out anything but their names. Thank God for the Geneva Convention."


John
 
Upvote 0

camaro540

Regular Member
Jan 28, 2002
318
0
58
Visit site
✟15,744.00
Faith
Messianic
Hello John & All

Tell that to the U.S. State Department and the Department of Defense, and for that matter, the President of the United States. They all classify the prisoners as detainees, not prisoners of war. Therefore, the rules of the Geneva Convention hardly apply.

John

I would also like to add to this list.
Tell that to the people that lost they're loved ones by this act of
insanity. This act was not of God, these people are insane MURDERERS.

I will agree that we are to love our enemys, but God never said
we are to pamper them. We are to correct them with a rod of
iron.

And, if we go by the word of God, I don't know that they even
deserve the treatment they're getting now.
One of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not kill" .
This word "KILL" in the Hebrew is "premeditated MURDER".
They're act was not that of war, but that of premeditated MURDER!!

Patrick
 
Upvote 0

strathyboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2002
761
2
Visit site
✟1,376.00
"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."

"B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention."

Read A and B carefully. If the person falls into ANY category in part A (1 OR 2 OR 3, etc.) or ANY category in part B (1 OR 2) then they are considered a prisoner of war. It certainly looks like more than one of the categories in part A could be applicable to the "detainees" in Guantanamo.

"And, with all the political scholars of the world, do you honestly think any country would willingly disregard the Geneva Convention, if it applied, and think they would get away with it? "

The US has done it before and gotten away with it. (Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, etc.) I think they will get away with it this time too.

I am indeed taking the moral high ground. Simply because the US is really really angry is no justification to ignore a Convention that the US signed. That is simply dishonest.
The Convention says nothing about immediately letting the "detainees" go free. It simply ensures that they are treated humanely. How is this a bad thing? We treat our serial killers better than these people have been treated.
The US's actions are akin to vigilante justice. It is like the grieving father who, upon losing their child, took up arms and killed the one who murdered the child. Although this may be justice, last I heard, we lived in a civilized society. I don't think we should sink to the level of the terrorists.
 
Upvote 0

camaro540

Regular Member
Jan 28, 2002
318
0
58
Visit site
✟15,744.00
Faith
Messianic
"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 ."

As above, we are not the enemy, we are defending ourselves.
So, they have not fallen into the hands of the enemy, the enemy
has fallen into our hands by the grace of God.

They did not attack our military, they attacked innocent men,
women, and children to do nothing more then to inflict terror
(fear). If they wanted a war, why not attack our military?
Because they are murdering, lowlife, scum bags.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

strathyboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2002
761
2
Visit site
✟1,376.00
That can be argued, but I disagree. I think that those in Guantanamo Bay, as well as the Taliban would consider the US to be an enemy. Whether or not both sides believe the are the enemy to the other is irrelevant.
Perhaps the US was defending itself, but again, I don't think that matters. In Vietnam, when the US declared war on the North Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese were then simply defending itself from American aggression. Does this make Vietnam not the enemy of the US?
Think logically for a minute. The US has the most powerful military in the world. Nobody in their right mind would attack it. They are terrorists for a reason. A terrorist commits what are called terror attacks, meant to inflict terror upon an enemy populace/government. I believe the 9/11 attacks did that admirably. They don't want a war with the US, at least not until they can get more allies on their side. I agree, if they wanted a war, there are easier ways to do it.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sleep deprivation, isolation from other prisoners, interrogation by a series of questioners for literaly hours on end, confinement to small, dark cells, limit of one meal per day, and a host of other measures might be used to get information from these murderous thugs.

So tell me, what is considered 'torture'? Is anything short of pampering these evildoers considered 'torture'? And, what would the feel-good crowd do to obtain information to thwart future terrorist attacks on innocent men, women and children? Are they to be asked any questions at all? Should they be gauranteed safe travel back to their terrorist cells? Talk to me, feel-good crowd. What exactly should be done? Anything?

John
 
Upvote 0

strathyboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2002
761
2
Visit site
✟1,376.00
"Furthermore, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention...Period."

I suppose you are right, there is no specific mention of terrorists in the Geneva Convention. However, there is also no specific mention of anyone named Bob, anyone with red hair, anyone born on a Tuesday, or anyone who likes to eat waffles for breakfast. Can we now deny all of these people their rights as well?

The fact is that the terrorists were present in the nation of Afghanistan and were captured as part of a military action. One of the participants in this action, the USA, has signed the Geneva Convention, and thus any persons detained in that military action are subject to the Convention.

Until there is a section in the Convention that says something like "Terrorism disqualifies a person from the rights contained in this Convention", I believe that members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are covered.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
By every deffinition in the Geneva Convention, terrorist do not fit within the parameters.

Now stop trying to coddle those murderers and start answering my questions.

"So tell me, what is considered 'torture'? Is anything short of pampering these evildoers considered 'torture'? And, what would the feel-good crowd do to obtain information to thwart future terrorist attacks on innocent men, women and children? Are they to be asked any questions at all? Should they be gauranteed safe travel back to their terrorist cells? Talk to me, feel-good crowd. What exactly should be done? Anything?"

John
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

strathyboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2002
761
2
Visit site
✟1,376.00
"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: "

Note that only one of the following need apply in order to be considered a Prisoner of War.

"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. "

The "detainees" were either members of the Taliban, which would definitely apply, or members of Al-Qaeda, who could be considered a volunteer corps fighting with the Taliban.

"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. "

I suppose that you could argue that Al-Qaeda did not operate in accordance with the laws and customs of war, so they might not apply for #2. But I will believe that this applies until you show me an official list of what constitutes "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. "

Since the Taliban wasn't necessarily recognized as an official government by the US, any members of the Taliban would apply under this one.

"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. "

If Al-Qaeda were not considered members of the armed forces of Afghanistan, then they would apply here.

"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. "

This seems to cover anybody who didn't actually fight against the US and the Northern Alliance.

"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. "

This would cover anybody taken who did not belong to the Taliban or Al-Qaeda who spontaneously resisted the invasion.

All members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, whom you label "terrorists" would seem to apply to many of the above statements.

Your second statement was not part of our original argument, and is much more open to debate, depending on your views regarding torture and world politics.

In my opinion, the prisoners need not be pampered. Adequate shelter and food, access to proper bathing facilities, and all items necessary to their religion (ie. a prayer mat). Leaving them out in the open, in the elements, as has been shown in some of the pictures, could be considered torture. They should indeed be asked questions, but it is possible to interrogate a prisoner without resorting to torture.
Whether or not the "detainees" are allowed to leave seems irrelevant in the "war on terrorism", since there were many members of Al-Qaeda (most notably Osama Bin Laden) who are still at large. I don't think letting them go will make terrorism any more or less likely.
Am I the "feel-good crowd"? That's kinda funny.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Talk to me, strathyboy.

You are in charge of the prisoners. How will you try to get information from them? Don't tell me what you won't do. I want to know exactly what you will do.

And you could repost the Geneva Convention definition of prisoner of war 100 times a day, you will not see terrorists described.

Answer the question. Exactly what will you do to get information?

John
 
Upvote 0

strathyboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2002
761
2
Visit site
✟1,376.00
"And you could repost the Geneva Convention definition of prisoner of war 100 times a day, you will not see terrorists described. "

Could you please tell me how the members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not described above. Is it because the word "terrorist"
is not used?

"You are in charge of the prisoners. How will you try to get information from them? Don't tell me what you won't do. I want to know exactly what you will do. "

Beats me. How did the US get information from POW's in Vietnam? How did the US get information from POW's in WW2? How did the US get information from POW's in WW1? I would use the methods that the US used in all of those situations.
As a Christian, I cannot advocate torture, regardless of what we think the "detainees" in Guantanamo Bay.

Do you advocate torture?
 
Upvote 0

ZiSunka

It means 'yellow dog'
Jan 16, 2002
17,005
284
✟38,767.00
Faith
Christian
>>I will agree that we are to love our enemys, but God never said we are to pamper them. We are to correct them with a rod of iron.

So that must mean torture? You're saying that God says we should treat our enemies with torture? Where does it say "rod of iron"? Which chapter and verse gives us permission to be barbaric?

>>And, if we go by the word of God, I don't know that they even
deserve the treatment they're getting now.
One of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not kill" .
This word "KILL" in the Hebrew is "premeditated MURDER".
They're act was not that of war, but that of premeditated MURDER!!


So, does premeditated murder warrant torture in God's eyes? Does this go for any murderer, or just ones from other religions and cultures?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Nice try strathyboy,

I never claimed that since the word 'terrorist' is not mentioned, they are not pow's. I said that terrorists are not described as qualifying as prisoners of war. Show me exactly where terrorists are qualified to be prisoners of war. Notice there are several conditionds to be met, to be classified as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention. And, all the other examples you bring up qualify as prisoners of war. Don't play word games with me, strathyboy. Read thoroughly what you constantly repost.
And your attempts to fit the terrorists into the prisoner of war status, are vague and sketchy, at best. Your, "But I will believe that this applies until you show me an official list of what constitutes "laws and customs of war". statement, speaks volumes about you.

You ask, "Do you advocate torture?"

That depends on your the definition of what torture is. Tell me what your full and complete definition of 'torture' is, and I will be more able to answer your question.

John
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.