Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by SirNitram »

Link
President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is "scattered throughout the executive branch," a senior administration official said. The executive order Obama signed Thursday orders the prison closed within one year, and a Cabinet-level panel named to review each case separately will have to spend its initial weeks and perhaps months scouring the corners of the federal government in search of relevant material.

Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner. They said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were reluctant to share information, and that the Bush administration's focus on detention and interrogation made preparation of viable prosecutions a far lower priority.

But other former officials took issue with the criticism and suggested that the new team has begun to appreciate the complexity and dangers of the issue and is looking for excuses.

After promising quick solutions, one former senior official said, the Obama administration is now "backpedaling and trying to buy time" by blaming its predecessor. Unless political appointees decide to overrule the recommendations of the career bureaucrats handling the issue under both administrations, he predicted, the new review will reach the same conclusion as the last: that most of the detainees can be neither released nor easily tried in this country.

"All but about 60 who have been approved for release," assuming countries can be found to accept them, "are either high-level al-Qaeda people responsible for 9/11 or bombings, or were high-level Taliban or al-Qaeda facilitators or money people," said the former official who, like others, insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters about such matters. He acknowledged that he relied on Pentagon assurances that the files were comprehensive and in order rather than reading them himself.

Obama officials said they want to make their own judgments.

"The consensus among almost everyone is that the current system is not in our national interest and not sustainable," another senior official said. But "it's clear that we can't clear up this issue overnight" partly because the files "are not comprehensive."

Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, who served as deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs in 2006-2007, said he had persistent problems in attempts to assemble all information on individual cases. Threats to recommend the release or transfer of a detainee were often required, he said, to persuade the CIA to "cough up a sentence or two."

A second former Pentagon official said most individual files are heavily summarized dossiers that do not contain the kind of background and investigative work that would be put together by a federal prosecution team. He described "regular food fights" among different parts of the government over information-sharing on the detainees.

A CIA spokesman denied that the agency had not been "forthcoming" with detainee information, saying that such suggestions were "simply wrong" and that "we have worked very closely with other agencies to share what we know" about the prisoners. While denying there had been problems, one intelligence official said the Defense Department was far more likely to be responsible for any information lapses, since it had initially detained and interrogated most of the prisoners and had been in charge of them at the prison.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that the Defense Department would cooperate fully in the review.

"Fundamentally, we believe that the individual files on each detainee are comprehensive and sufficiently organized," Morrell said. He added that "in many cases, there will be thousands of pages of documents . . . which makes a comprehensive assessment a time-consuming endeavor."

"Not all the documents are physically located in one place," Morrell said, but most are available through a database.

"The main point here is that there are lots of records, and we are prepared to make them available to anybody who needs to see them as part of this review."

There have been indications from within and outside the government for some time, however, that evidence and other materials on the Guantanamo prisoners were in disarray, even though most of the detainees have been held for years.

Justice Department lawyers responding in federal courts to defense challenges over the past six months have said repeatedly that the government was overwhelmed by the sudden need to assemble material after Supreme Court rulings giving detainees habeas corpus and other rights.

In one federal filing, the Justice Department said that "the record . . . is not simply a collection of papers sitting in a box at the Defense Department. It is a massive undertaking just to produce the record in this one case." In another filing, the department said that "defending these cases requires an intense, inter-agency coordination of efforts. None of the relevant agencies, however, was prepared to handle this volume of habeas cases on an expedited basis."

Evidence gathered for military commission trials is in disarray, according to some former officials, who said military lawyers lacked the trial experience to prosecute complex international terrorism cases.

In a court filing this month, Darrel Vandeveld, a former military prosecutor at Guantanamo who asked to be relieved of his duties, said evidence was "strewn throughout the prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed with vaguely-labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on the tops of desks."

He said he once accidentally found "crucial physical evidence" that "had been tossed in a locker located at Guantanamo and promptly forgotten."
You know, this doesn't surprise. You couldn't design a more ineffective system of prosecution if you hired the Keystone Kops. After all, these morons picked by the Republicans were so outrageously, blazingly stupid as to not include 'what to do if the suspect pleads guilty', and 'what to do against a legal challenge permitted since well before there was an America'.

I'm also going to say it now: I bet it's intentional, these missing files. I suspect that, as far as real criminal proceedings are measured, there are no files. And I think it's purposeful to try and eternally justify putting them in concrete boxes.

And to think the retard-brigade responsible proudly announced 'The Grown-Ups were in charge' when they gained power.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Alyeska »

Unless something changes, when these men enter America, a great many are going to be set free due to Bush Administration incompetence. The Right Wing will howl that Obama is letting Terrorists off the hook and ignore the fact that this is Bush's fault entirely.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by weemadando »

I can't wait for the right wing to jump all over this shit. Because, as we all know - keeping people in cells offshore, being tortured and held without basic rights of POWs or any prisoners and without any legal process is far better than, you know - doing it properly with oversight and not pissing off the entire fucking international community.
User avatar
Pulp Hero
Jedi Master
Posts: 1085
Joined: 2006-04-21 11:13pm
Location: Planet P. Its a bug planet.

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Pulp Hero »

weemadando wrote:I can't wait for the right wing to jump all over this shit. Because, as we all know - keeping people in cells offshore, being tortured and held without basic rights of POWs or any prisoners and without any legal process is far better than, you know - doing it properly with oversight and not pissing off the entire fucking international community.
"If you're pissin' off the Eupopeans thats mean you're doing it right."-Derp

Seriously, I've met GOP supporters who think that America shouldn't "cave in" to the opinions of allied nations. Funny, they are also the same people who wonder why those "cowardly" nations don't help us out in Iraq.
I can never love you because I'm just thirty squirrels in a mansuit."

"Ah, good ol' Popeye. Punching ghosts until they explode."[/b]-Internet Webguy

"It was cut because an Army Ordnance panel determined that a weapon that kills an enemy soldier 10 times before he hits the ground was a waste of resources, so they scaled it back to only kill him 3 times."-Anon, on the cancellation of the Army's multi-kill vehicle.
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Big Phil »

There's a very simple way to keep these people legally incarcerated for years or decades - declare them to be Prisoners of War, fighting for Al Qaeda. Since Al Qaeda will never surrender, these jokers can legally be locked up in perpetuity.

Not that this is an ideal solution, since some of these prisoners are undoubtedly innocent, but I don't really see why the alternative to keeping them imprisoned in perpetuity must be setting them free within the borders of the United States.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Alyeska »

POWs require a sanctioned state to fight from IIRC. With no declared state of war, with no recognized government backing, how can they be POWs?
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Stormin
Jedi Knight
Posts: 914
Joined: 2002-12-09 03:14pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Stormin »

Give them all decent houses that the government bought up, give them all time consuming but rewarding jobs and watch them quietly for a decade or so to be sure they are not going to start something. Easy solution to the problem of the ones that are probably not guilty of doing anything but might start if they are just kicked out of a plane at Kabul Airport.
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Big Phil »

Alyeska wrote:POWs require a sanctioned state to fight from IIRC. With no declared state of war, with no recognized government backing, how can they be POWs?
Isn't that the same argument the Bush administration was using to keep them locked up in perpetuity?

Here's a question for our Israeli members - how did Israel deal with Hamas, the PLO and other stateless terrorist organizations when they captured its members? Were they declared enemy combatants, POWs, or something else?
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Alyeska »

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Isn't that the same argument the Bush administration was using to keep them locked up in perpetuity?
Sorta, except Dubya's argument doesn't hold. If they aren't POWs, then they are criminals. They aren't an invisible class with zero rights. Our laws are very clear. Either they are POWs, or they are criminals.

Here's a question for our Israeli members - how did Israel deal with Hamas, the PLO and other stateless terrorist organizations when they captured its members? Were they declared enemy combatants, POWs, or something else?[/quote]
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Ender »

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Alyeska wrote:POWs require a sanctioned state to fight from IIRC. With no declared state of war, with no recognized government backing, how can they be POWs?
Isn't that the same argument the Bush administration was using to keep them locked up in perpetuity?
Just because Bush said/did something doesn't mean it was wrong. The argument is solid - legally speaking these men are not POWs. The problem is that Bush went from this to his "do whatever we like" conclusion. The fact is that international laws like the Geneva convention do not cover these kinds of groups. Nobody foresaw this kind of scenario when those treaties were drafted. Now post 9/11, America should have used its moral position and swell of international support to come together with world leaders and address this issue, drafting the appropriate laws, resolutions, and treaties needed to effectively combat these groups across the globe. But instead we got the cowboy attitude that screwed us.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10713
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Elfdart »

Bullshit. Most of the people in Guantanamo are from Afghanistan, which is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which DO apply to irregulars who fight alongside the armed forces of the government. So not only would members of the Taliban be POWs, but so would any foreign volunteers who joined forces with them if they were caught in battle.

LINK

The ones who get abducted off the streets of various cities around the world (or get kidnapped off a plane in the US like Maher Arar) are entitled to due process of law if they are in US custody.
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Ender »

Elfdart wrote:Bullshit. Most of the people in Guantanamo are from Afghanistan, which is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which DO apply to irregulars who fight alongside the armed forces of the government. So not only would members of the Taliban be POWs, but so would any foreign volunteers who joined forces with them if they were caught in battle.

LINK
How wonderful. You have a letter from Human Rights Watch. Have you read it? I suggest you do; because it doesn't say what you appear to think it does. Contrary to your claim, irregulars who fight alongside the armed forces of the government are subject to the four part test, and do not automatically gain the protections of it that the belligerents under the command of national forces do. Al-Queda fighters are quite pointedly not integrated into the national militia, in fact this was one of the justifications the Taliban claimed when they did not turn over Osama Bin Laden in 2001. Thus they need to meet the requirements of the four part test defined in the Hague convention of 1907, which they manifestly do not. Foreign nationals would need to invoke the determination tribunal of article five to find if they qualified for POW status or not (and being members of Al-Queda, an organization disavowed by the national government the tribunal finding for them is unlikely), and that the letter attests to both of these facts.

So no Elfdart. These men are not POWs. The closest you letter comes to agreeing with you is to state that it is their "understanding" that some irregulars were integrated into the Taliban chain of command, a fact at odds with official statements from the Afghanistan government at the time. Immediately afterwards, it states that there needs to be a tribunal held to determine if these men qualify for POW status or not. They close that paragraph by discussing article five in a sufficiently vague manner to make what it says unclear. Article five (link) does not automatically grant POW status to those of undetermined status, it grants similar protections and rights. While you may not grasp the nuances of that definition, it is a key distinction when you move beyond their capture on the battlefield and move into confinement and prosecution.

This difference puts them in the gray zone both myself and Alyeska discussed. POWs fall under a separate judicial system from criminal or civil offenders. These men are not POWs, and thus not to be prosecuted under such conditions, nor confined under them while awaiting trial. However their actions make it clear that they are not civilians or civil offenders. They are criminals whose crimes have scant law detailing their prosecution, confining treatment, or in many cases even their criminal acts. For example, would you charge those who committed the 9/11 attack under the murder provisions of the Roman Statute in the International Criminal Court, arguing that it was a systematic attack against the civilian population, or with 3000 separate charges of Murder in the First Degree in US federal court, or try to determine which deaths constituted a "special case" and charge them with a number of both First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder charges in the state of New York? This is the stuff that needs to be worked out among the international community so that we can have a consistent framework under which to address this problem.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
eyl
Jedi Knight
Posts: 714
Joined: 2007-01-30 11:03am
Location: City of Gold and Iron

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by eyl »

Alyeska wrote:Here's a question for our Israeli members - how did Israel deal with Hamas, the PLO and other stateless terrorist organizations when they captured its members? Were they declared enemy combatants, POWs, or something else?
I'm not sure the Israeli model is one you want. Members of these organizations are not considered POWs by Israel, and are often tried if there's evidence of specific attacks or activities they committed against Israel. In other cases, they're held in administrative detention, which allows for them to be held without trial for security reasons (the order to do so is valid for up to six months but can be renewed by the issuing authority so this is effectively indefinite incarceration, though it can be challenged in court). Since 2002, they can also be held under the Incarceration of Unlwaful Combatabts Law.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by MKSheppard »

Ender wrote:This difference puts them in the gray zone both myself and Alyeska discussed.
There's no such gray zone. We're allowed to summarily apply the death penalty. Nuremberg was quite clear on this.

Link
“ The evidence shows that after the capitulation of the armies of Yugoslavia and Greece, both countries were occupied within the meaning of International Law. It shows further that they remained occupied during the period that List was Armed Forces Commander Southeast. It is clear from the record also that the guerrillas participating in the incidents shown by the evidence during this period were not entitled to be classed as lawful belligerents within the rules herein before announced. We agree, therefore, with the contention of the defendant List that the guerrilla fighters with which he contended were not lawful belligerents entitling them to prisoner of war status upon capture. We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans in Yugoslavia and Greece during the time he was Armed Forces Commander Southeast.”
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Ender »

As an addendum, since the editing time has expired:

In summary Elfdart, your letter deals with concerns by the Human Rights Watch that those apprehended in the GWoT are not receiving the minimum standards of care that they should be alloted under international law. These standards apply to POWs, but also to those whose POW status is indeterminate until such time that a tribunal is convened and finds otherwise. In essence, they are saying "POW or not you have to treat them fairly". However, standards of care are not the topic. The topic is legal status as it relates to legal prosecution for alleged criminal acts. And the legal status for POWs and those captured but not POWs is wildly different. Thus this is an important distinction to make. Many, if not the majority, of those held are not POWs, failing the four part test. Thus they would not be prosecuted as a POW would. The jurisdiction, court proceedings, punishments, and in some cases crimes for these unlawful combatants are poorly defined if at all. This must be addressed.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Ender »

MKSheppard wrote:
Ender wrote:This difference puts them in the gray zone both myself and Alyeska discussed.
There's no such gray zone. We're allowed to summarily apply the death penalty. Nuremberg was quite clear on this.

Link
“ The evidence shows that after the capitulation of the armies of Yugoslavia and Greece, both countries were occupied within the meaning of International Law. It shows further that they remained occupied during the period that List was Armed Forces Commander Southeast. It is clear from the record also that the guerrillas participating in the incidents shown by the evidence during this period were not entitled to be classed as lawful belligerents within the rules herein before announced. We agree, therefore, with the contention of the defendant List that the guerrilla fighters with which he contended were not lawful belligerents entitling them to prisoner of war status upon capture. We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans in Yugoslavia and Greece during the time he was Armed Forces Commander Southeast.”
Those happened prior to the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 Shep. The laws have since changed. Further, there are a multitude of criminal acts that aide and abet those who commit acts of terrorism that do not merit the death penalty. This would need to be addressed.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
CJvR
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2926
Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Location: K.P.E.V. 1

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by CJvR »

Elfdart wrote:Bullshit. Most of the people in Guantanamo are from Afghanistan, which is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which DO apply to irregulars who fight alongside the armed forces of the government. So not only would members of the Taliban be POWs, but so would any foreign volunteers who joined forces with them if they were caught in battle.
Well what § would make them POWs?
Art 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.
IIRC the US didn't recognize the Taliban regime so that would mean that A-Q would be judged under A2 rather than under A3 along side the Taliban milita (the "regular" army of the unrecognized Taliban regime). You think A-Q qualifies for POW status under those conditions?
I thought Roman candles meant they were imported. - Kelly Bundy
12 yards long, two lanes wide it's 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero! - Simpsons
Support the KKK environmental program - keep the Arctic white!
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10713
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Elfdart »

MKSheppard wrote:
Ender wrote:This difference puts them in the gray zone both myself and Alyeska discussed.
There's no such gray zone. We're allowed to summarily apply the death penalty. Nuremberg was quite clear on this.

Link
“ The evidence shows that after the capitulation of the armies of Yugoslavia and Greece, both countries were occupied within the meaning of International Law. It shows further that they remained occupied during the period that List was Armed Forces Commander Southeast. It is clear from the record also that the guerrillas participating in the incidents shown by the evidence during this period were not entitled to be classed as lawful belligerents within the rules herein before announced. We agree, therefore, with the contention of the defendant List that the guerrilla fighters with which he contended were not lawful belligerents entitling them to prisoner of war status upon capture. We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans in Yugoslavia and Greece during the time he was Armed Forces Commander Southeast.”
Show me where in US law that summary executions are allowed.
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Ender »

Elfdart wrote:Show me where in US law that summary executions are allowed.
If you can successfully argue that such irregular military forces constitute spies or saboteurs under the Hague convention, then they would be POWs subject to the UCMJ. In which case you could convene a summary courts martial under the authorization of the commanding officer of the detached unit and do so under article 106.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10713
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Elfdart »

CJvR wrote:
Elfdart wrote:Bullshit. Most of the people in Guantanamo are from Afghanistan, which is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which DO apply to irregulars who fight alongside the armed forces of the government. So not only would members of the Taliban be POWs, but so would any foreign volunteers who joined forces with them if they were caught in battle.
Well what § would make them POWs?
Art 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.
IIRC the US didn't recognize the Taliban regime so that would mean that A-Q would be judged under A2 rather than under A3 along side the Taliban milita (the "regular" army of the unrecognized Taliban regime). You think A-Q qualifies for POW status under those conditions?
Whether a country recognizes another is irrelevant, since both the US and Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions. By your logic, the Arab countries that don't recognize Israel would be justified if they ignored the Conventions with Israeli POWs. Any country could announce that it doesn't recognize another, and start serving Cock Meat Sandwiches to prisoners.

Ender wrote: How wonderful. You have a letter from Human Rights Watch. Have you read it? I suggest you do; because it doesn't say what you appear to think it does. Contrary to your claim, irregulars who fight alongside the armed forces of the government are subject to the four part test, and do not automatically gain the protections of it that the belligerents under the command of national forces do.
It states that they are to be treated as POWs until a competent tribunal finds that they are not. There have been no "competent tribunals" for the people locked up in Guantanamo, only kangaroo courts that are so entirely bogus and incompetent that even under the rigged proceedings, they can't arrange hearings for most of the people locked up down there, let alone legitimate trials.

Al-Queda fighters are quite pointedly not integrated into the national militia, in fact this was one of the justifications the Taliban claimed when they did not turn over Osama Bin Laden in 2001.
The fact that Al-Queda wasn't part of the armed forces of Afghanistan in 2001 (before the US invaded) doesn't mean they weren't added in 2002 and later (after the US invaded). See the bolded part above? The Taliban and foreign fighters would fit that description like a glove. If a competent tribunal were to find that they weren't abiding by the laws of war, then they could face trial and punishment.
Thus they need to meet the requirements of the four part test defined in the Hague convention of 1907, which they manifestly do not.


If it's such an open-and-shut case, then a legitimate court could have ruled that way. But none of the Guantanamo cases has been brought before a real court or court martial or tribunal, only the clownshoes military commissions that just sentenced Bin Laden's alleged chauffeur to time served plus a few months.
Foreign nationals would need to invoke the determination tribunal of article five to find if they qualified for POW status or not (and being members of Al-Queda, an organization disavowed by the national government the tribunal finding for them is unlikely), and that the letter attests to both of these facts.
You have it in the wrong order. The burden of proof is on those who accuse them of being outside the protections given to POWs.
So no Elfdart. These men are not POWs. The closest you letter comes to agreeing with you is to state that it is their "understanding" that some irregulars were integrated into the Taliban chain of command, a fact at odds with official statements from the Afghanistan government at the time.
Which is why competent tribunals are mandated.

Immediately afterwards, it states that there needs to be a tribunal held to determine if these men qualify for POW status or not. They close that paragraph by discussing article five in a sufficiently vague manner to make what it says unclear. Article five (link) does not automatically grant POW status to those of undetermined status, it grants similar protections and rights. While you may not grasp the nuances of that definition, it is a key distinction when you move beyond their capture on the battlefield and move into confinement and prosecution.
It's a distinction without a difference.

Here's the text:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.


So people suspected of being spies or saboteurs or similar troublemakers are still entitled to due process in a fair and regular trial.

This difference puts them in the gray zone both myself and Alyeska discussed. POWs fall under a separate judicial system from criminal or civil offenders.
There's no "gray zone". Either a person is a POW or he isn't. If he isn't, he's still entitled to a fair and regular trial. Where the person was caught would determine whether he faces a court martial or civilian court. Since most of the people in Guantanamo were NOT caught on any battlefield or in any kind of combat, then they should face the regular courts. If someone is caught fighting US troops and is found to NOT be a POW, then he could face military justice or regular courts.
These men are not POWs, and thus not to be prosecuted under such conditions, nor confined under them while awaiting trial.
They are until a "fair and regular" court determines they aren't.
However their actions make it clear that they are not civilians or civil offenders. They are criminals whose crimes have scant law detailing their prosecution, confining treatment, or in many cases even their criminal acts. For example, would you charge those who committed the 9/11 attack under the murder provisions of the Roman Statute in the International Criminal Court, arguing that it was a systematic attack against the civilian population, or with 3000 separate charges of Murder in the First Degree in US federal court, or try to determine which deaths constituted a "special case" and charge them with a number of both First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder charges in the state of New York? This is the stuff that needs to be worked out among the international community so that we can have a consistent framework under which to address this problem.
It would depend on what they did and where they did it. More importantly, it would depend on who has custody. If (for example) Bin Laden was arrested, he could be tried in any number of venues, for any number of crimes -just as Timothy McVeigh was charged with violations of city, county, state and federal law. The feds got first crack at him, but if he had been acquitted for killing employees of the US government, he would have faced state murder charges in Oklahoma. Bin Laden would face federal and state murder charges, as well as murder charges in the home countries of any foreign nationals he killed.

Some tribesman who was caught by a hostile clan and turned over to the US for reward money should go through regular court proceedings. If there's no evidence (or not anywhere near enough), there's no justification for locking him up. If he's caught fighting against US forces, he should be treated as a POW until/unless a real court determines he's not one. It's not that complicated. More importantly, it's what the law demands.
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10713
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Elfdart »

Ender wrote:
Elfdart wrote:Show me where in US law that summary executions are allowed.
If you can successfully argue that such irregular military forces constitute spies or saboteurs under the Hague convention, then they would be POWs subject to the UCMJ. In which case you could convene a summary courts martial under the authorization of the commanding officer of the detached unit and do so under article 106.
That's not what Sheepfucker was talking about. He had this in mind:

Image
hawkwind
Youngling
Posts: 131
Joined: 2005-11-28 05:56am
Location: Czech republic

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by hawkwind »

If I remember correctly, that little instruction of military law you get once you enter the service, no soldier might under any circumstance "sumarily execute" somebody. If its POW then that person has certain status and if it is not POW then it is suspect/criminal and as such he shall be taken into custody and brought in front of civillian tribunal.
Shooting prisoners into head, regardless of their status, clear or unclear will land you in jail, that if you are lucky.

J.
Destrier? 3/4 ton of meat?
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Ender »

Elfdart wrote:It states that they are to be treated as POWs until a competent tribunal finds that they are not. There have been no "competent tribunals" for the people locked up in Guantanamo, only kangaroo courts that are so entirely bogus and incompetent that even under the rigged proceedings, they can't arrange hearings for most of the people locked up down there, let alone legitimate trials.
No, it doesn't. It states that under article 5 they are alloted the rights and privileges established for POWs. This is wholly different, in particular the legal jurisdiction they would all under.

The fact that Al-Queda wasn't part of the armed forces of Afghanistan in 2001 (before the US invaded) doesn't mean they weren't added in 2002 and later (after the US invaded). See the bolded part above? The Taliban and foreign fighters would fit that description like a glove. If a competent tribunal were to find that they weren't abiding by the laws of war, then they could face trial and punishment.
Al-Queda was a prior organized movement with established bases, operations, and training. They openly reject the laws and customs of war. It in no way shape or form meets the criteria of clause 6.
If it's such an open-and-shut case, then a legitimate court could have ruled that way. But none of the Guantanamo cases has been brought before a real court or court martial or tribunal, only the clownshoes military commissions that just sentenced Bin Laden's alleged chauffeur to time served plus a few months.
A point which has nothing to do with whether or not they are legally POWs.
You have it in the wrong order. The burden of proof is on those who accuse them of being outside the protections given to POWs.
Have you even read what you are claiming supports you? First you claimed Al-Queda was a spontaneously formed movement that had not had the time to form themselves into regular armed units that respected the laws and customs of war. Then you claim that article 5, which essentially states that the rights and privileges afforded to POWs is the default for any captured persons must be proven, rather than a determination of POW vs nonPOW status. The last sentence of article 5, clause 3 is explicit on that. Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?
Which is why competent tribunals are mandated.
Yes. And?

It's a distinction without a difference.
No, it absolutely is not. POWs fall under a different legal code. That's the entire freaking point of this.
Here's the text:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.


So people suspected of being spies or saboteurs or similar troublemakers are still entitled to due process in a fair and regular trial.
Yes. And the system under which that trial is convened is dependent on whether or not they are POWs or simply captured personnel. This is an overwhelming difference. You can keep pullin the EIny style raving tricks all you want, but it isn't helping you here.

There's no "gray zone". Either a person is a POW or he isn't. If he isn't, he's still entitled to a fair and regular trial.
You keep repeating it like it is relevant to the discussion. No one is contesting this point. It has nothing to do with the issue, as much as you would like it to. The issue is whether said trial would be conducted under the UCMJ, as would be dictated by POW status, or one of the other legals systems out there. This determination hinges on the distinction of whether or not they are POWs or not. If there is any ambiguity at all about your position, you are not a POW until a tribunal determines you to be so. System is thus - you get captured, then they determine if you are a POW or not, then they investigate and try you under the appropriate legal system, then they pursue the verdict. You are misrepresenting what is the default status.
Where the person was caught would determine whether he faces a court martial or civilian court. Since most of the people in Guantanamo were NOT caught on any battlefield or in any kind of combat, then they should face the regular courts. If someone is caught fighting US troops and is found to NOT be a POW, then he could face military justice or regular courts.
These would be what the tribunal would consider, yes.
They are until a "fair and regular" court determines they aren't.
No, they are not. They are captured personnel until they have been ascertained to be POWs, unlawful combatants, criminals, or simply civilians.
It would depend on what they did and where they did it. More importantly, it would depend on who has custody. If (for example) Bin Laden was arrested, he could be tried in any number of venues, for any number of crimes -just as Timothy McVeigh was charged with violations of city, county, state and federal law. The feds got first crack at him, but if he had been acquitted for killing employees of the US government, he would have faced state murder charges in Oklahoma. Bin Laden would face federal and state murder charges, as well as murder charges in the home countries of any foreign nationals he killed.
So if you agree that it gives rise to an incredibly diverse number of options, why exactly to you take issue with the statement that a codified system to address this and completely remove any ambiguity is needed?
Some tribesman who was caught by a hostile clan and turned over to the US for reward money should go through regular court proceedings. If there's no evidence (or not anywhere near enough), there's no justification for locking him up. If he's caught fighting against US forces, he should be treated as a POW until/unless a real court determines he's not one. It's not that complicated. More importantly, it's what the law demands.
No, they are to be treated as a captured person until such time as a tribunal determines if they are a POW or not, at which point there would be a determination made on guilt or not. That is what the law demands, not your warped claims. There reason for this should be evident - military law is very harsh in a number of regards. Treating a civilian who was captured as a POW makes them eligible for a large number of crimes and punishments they would otherwise not be subject to. To try them under the UCMJ, as POW status would require, when they are civilians would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

Elfdart wrote: That's not what Sheepfucker was talking about. He had this in mind:

Image
...

That incident was a legal execution for a spy/saboteur under article 106, as metted out by a summary court martial by the officer in charge. You really, truly, have no freaking clue what you are talking about, do you?
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Ender »

I suppose in the interest of total accuracy, I should say that General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's actions would fall under article 106. I don't know what system the Vietnamese military used at that time. And I am unaware if the President had granted jurisdiction of summary court-martials to try article 106 at the time. I know it has in the past, but I thought that was no longer the case (speaking of the present, not 1968).
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10713
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

Post by Elfdart »

Ender wrote:No, it doesn't. It states that under article 5 they are alloted the rights and privileges established for POWs. This is wholly different, in particular the legal jurisdiction they would all under.
It's not wholly different. They have the same rights, except in cases where after due process, it's determined that a prisoner doesn't meet the standard. Until that happens, they are to be treated the same.


Al-Queda was a prior organized movement with established bases, operations, and training. They openly reject the laws and customs of war. It in no way shape or form meets the criteria of clause 6.
They took up arms to defend the government of their host country. To the extent that they joined with the Taliban's forces, they would meet the standard. If a competent tribunal found that they hadn't, or they didn't meet the other criteria, they wouldn't. But a tribunal makes that decision.

If it's such an open-and-shut case, then a legitimate court could have ruled that way. But none of the Guantanamo cases has been brought before a real court or court martial or tribunal, only the clownshoes military commissions that just sentenced Bin Laden's alleged chauffeur to time served plus a few months.
A point which has nothing to do with whether or not they are legally POWs.
It has everything to do with it. Due process includes the proceedings where it's decided whether a person meets the standard or not. What, did you think they flipped a coin or something? Did you think it was a matter of an officer deciding the issue on his own?
Yes. And?
Nice Wall of Ignorance.

It's a distinction without a difference.
No, it absolutely is not. POWs fall under a different legal code. That's the entire freaking point of this.
Yes. And the system under which that trial is convened is dependent on whether or not they are POWs or simply captured personnel. This is an overwhelming difference. You can keep pullin the EIny style raving tricks all you want, but it isn't helping you here.
:wanker:

There's no "gray zone". Either a person is a POW or he isn't. If he isn't, he's still entitled to a fair and regular trial.
You keep repeating it like it is relevant to the discussion. No one is contesting this point. It has nothing to do with the issue, as much as you would like it to. The issue is whether said trial would be conducted under the UCMJ, as would be dictated by POW status, or one of the other legals systems out there. This determination hinges on the distinction of whether or not they are POWs or not. If there is any ambiguity at all about your position, you are not a POW until a tribunal determines you to be so. System is thus - you get captured, then they determine if you are a POW or not, then they investigate and try you under the appropriate legal system, then they pursue the verdict. You are misrepresenting what is the default status.
That's not what the Convention says:
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
You're a POW until you've been determined not to be one by a competent tribunal. Learn to read.
So if you agree that it gives rise to an incredibly diverse number of options, why exactly to you take issue with the statement that a codified system to address this and completely remove any ambiguity is needed?
We already have one.

Image
...

That incident was a legal execution for a spy/saboteur under article 106, as metted out by a summary court martial by the officer in charge.
Leaving aside the fact that this is an ARVN officer and not one from the US, show me where under the UCMJ an officer is allowed to carry out a shooting like this one. Contrary to your claims, a summary court martial allows only the following punishments:
A servicemember tried at a summary court-martial may receive up to 30 days confinement, hard labor without confinement for no more than 45 days, restriction to a specified area for up to 2 months, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of 2/3 pay for one month or a fine. However, an enlisted person in the grade of E-5 and above may not be sentenced to confinement or hard labor without confinement. In addition, servicemembers in the grade of E-5 and E6 may not be reduced more than one pay grade; enlisted servicemembers in the grade of E-7 through E-9 may not be reduced at a summary court-martial.
Anyone see any mention of a death penalty?
You really, truly, have no freaking clue what you are talking about, do you?
Pot. Kettle. Feel free to show where a summary court martial allows murder as depicted in the photo. I'll give you a hint:
Article 106. Spies.
Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.
Post Reply