11-10-2004, 01:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2004, 03:36 PM by Occhidiangela.)
For Chaer and Armin:
EDIT: Take a look at :
New York Times November 9, 2004 Pg. 1
U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial At Guantánamo
By Neil A. Lewis
My link was garbled, but it Judge Roberston's rulings will re open the details of the proceedings. I think it is related to the article I mention below.
For a Guantanamo update, I read yesterday, in USA today ( quality of reporting is modest at best) an story that a US District judge just ruled that some of the procedures taken for a couple of the AQ detainees did not meet the acid test, and therefore their proceedings need to be re done. (Osama's chauffer was one of the players.) Required are a review and a confirmation, based on evidence, of the activities that affirmed the AQ links. What was vague to me was what appeared to be an inconsistency in which of the detainees had legal representation, and which did not. The story did not have enough detail on that.
In short, our own internal watchdogs are calling BS on a number of procedural matters, and any number of MILITARY lawyers are challenging some of the procedures taken on some prisoners. What that will result in is, of course, more delays. :P This ruling was a significant challenge to the procedures to date. Play is continuous.
On the other topic: Al Qaeda and other extranational terror organs do not fit into the rule of law that is the underpinning of the agreements and treaties that, for example, resulted in the Geneva Conventions of 1949. I won't go into a long discussion on the Law of Armed Conflict, as space and time are limited this morning. As they are unaccountable, autocratic, and outside the treaty model of political entities -- typically using a legitimage nation state's turf as cover and sanctuary -- their status is a phenomenon that the international community has yet to resolve. If this stuff was easy, it would already have been solved.
A few other points:
The 'War on Terror' cannot become a blanket defense for anything and everything. Standards of conduct must remain.
Absolutely correct, no argument there. Indeed, part of the ruling was that a set of the detainees in question were required to be treated as POW per Geneva, which they had not been previously.
, and slinking around the notion of human rights by hiding behind the fact that this is a 'new kind of war' will not cut the mustard.
Interesting language that you use, and I will point out that Taliban and AQ detainees are not the same breed of cat. Taliban fighters in general were the regular forces of the nation of Afghanistan, as run by the Taliban, and must be treated as POW's if captured. Al Qaeda does not have that status.
Your concern for human rights for a member of Al Qaeda is noted, I do not share your sympathy for them. To assert that their treatment is "slinking" around the notion of human rights ignores two points. Had they been left in Afghanistan in the hands of our allies there, most would be dead some years ago. You make assumptions on their treatment that strike me as bogus. The argument that these criminals are not to be interrogated, are to be treated as Geneva covered POW's, is at odds with the their lack of status under the convention and their pattern international criminal conduct. On the Taliban side, I'd say the argument for full Geneva status has strong grounds.
Maybe the Geneva conventions are outdated - I don't have a clue. However, as it stands right now, the bar is set far too low.
It fits any war that civilized nations undertake, ironic as that sounds, such as the 1991 war in Iraq. Regular forces captured in the 2003 fight indeed accorded Geneva protections. That phase of combat, however, ended in May of 2003, and this combination police/military activity since then with irregulars and partisans, not to mention some just plain criminal elements, is full of cases not covered.
Like it or not, war or no, terrorism is here to stay. Perhaps it is time that we begin sorting out some kind of more multilateral process by which to set standards of military imprisonment that are more attuned to the new reality of warfare.
Yes, I have been dealing with it since about 1983, so of course I agree. :D
As to an international protocol, not sure if that is possible, though I sure wish one were. What is first needed is an agreement on just what a terrorist is, which leads to the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" problem. The jurists do not have an easy answer to provide us, nor one that will not be rife with loopholes. The Geneva Conventions were not written in a day. :D
Occhi
EDIT: Take a look at :
New York Times November 9, 2004 Pg. 1
U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial At Guantánamo
By Neil A. Lewis
My link was garbled, but it Judge Roberston's rulings will re open the details of the proceedings. I think it is related to the article I mention below.
For a Guantanamo update, I read yesterday, in USA today ( quality of reporting is modest at best) an story that a US District judge just ruled that some of the procedures taken for a couple of the AQ detainees did not meet the acid test, and therefore their proceedings need to be re done. (Osama's chauffer was one of the players.) Required are a review and a confirmation, based on evidence, of the activities that affirmed the AQ links. What was vague to me was what appeared to be an inconsistency in which of the detainees had legal representation, and which did not. The story did not have enough detail on that.
In short, our own internal watchdogs are calling BS on a number of procedural matters, and any number of MILITARY lawyers are challenging some of the procedures taken on some prisoners. What that will result in is, of course, more delays. :P This ruling was a significant challenge to the procedures to date. Play is continuous.
On the other topic: Al Qaeda and other extranational terror organs do not fit into the rule of law that is the underpinning of the agreements and treaties that, for example, resulted in the Geneva Conventions of 1949. I won't go into a long discussion on the Law of Armed Conflict, as space and time are limited this morning. As they are unaccountable, autocratic, and outside the treaty model of political entities -- typically using a legitimage nation state's turf as cover and sanctuary -- their status is a phenomenon that the international community has yet to resolve. If this stuff was easy, it would already have been solved.
A few other points:
The 'War on Terror' cannot become a blanket defense for anything and everything. Standards of conduct must remain.
Absolutely correct, no argument there. Indeed, part of the ruling was that a set of the detainees in question were required to be treated as POW per Geneva, which they had not been previously.
, and slinking around the notion of human rights by hiding behind the fact that this is a 'new kind of war' will not cut the mustard.
Interesting language that you use, and I will point out that Taliban and AQ detainees are not the same breed of cat. Taliban fighters in general were the regular forces of the nation of Afghanistan, as run by the Taliban, and must be treated as POW's if captured. Al Qaeda does not have that status.
Your concern for human rights for a member of Al Qaeda is noted, I do not share your sympathy for them. To assert that their treatment is "slinking" around the notion of human rights ignores two points. Had they been left in Afghanistan in the hands of our allies there, most would be dead some years ago. You make assumptions on their treatment that strike me as bogus. The argument that these criminals are not to be interrogated, are to be treated as Geneva covered POW's, is at odds with the their lack of status under the convention and their pattern international criminal conduct. On the Taliban side, I'd say the argument for full Geneva status has strong grounds.
Maybe the Geneva conventions are outdated - I don't have a clue. However, as it stands right now, the bar is set far too low.
It fits any war that civilized nations undertake, ironic as that sounds, such as the 1991 war in Iraq. Regular forces captured in the 2003 fight indeed accorded Geneva protections. That phase of combat, however, ended in May of 2003, and this combination police/military activity since then with irregulars and partisans, not to mention some just plain criminal elements, is full of cases not covered.
Like it or not, war or no, terrorism is here to stay. Perhaps it is time that we begin sorting out some kind of more multilateral process by which to set standards of military imprisonment that are more attuned to the new reality of warfare.
Yes, I have been dealing with it since about 1983, so of course I agree. :D
As to an international protocol, not sure if that is possible, though I sure wish one were. What is first needed is an agreement on just what a terrorist is, which leads to the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" problem. The jurists do not have an easy answer to provide us, nor one that will not be rife with loopholes. The Geneva Conventions were not written in a day. :D
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete