Guantanamo and Iraqi prisoners

[Darth Wong]

Simple question: irrespective of whether a paper trail can be established, could it not be argued that the very upper echelons of the American leadership are at fault for the prisoner abuse scandal by spending the last two years telling everyone both inside the country and out that Geneva Convention protections should not apply to their enemies?

[Sharp-kun]

both inside the country and out that Geneva Convention protections should not apply to their enemies?

Aren't a lot of the people at Guantanamo classified as illegal combatants and so aren't POW's under the Geneva Convention? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a few requirments had to be met, such as wearing some form of uniform etc.

[Gandalf]

Simple question: irrespective of whether a paper trail can be established, could it not be argued that the very upper echelons of the American leadership are at fault for the prisoner abuse scandal by spending the last two years telling everyone both inside the country and out that Geneva Convention protections should not apply to their enemies?

I would say yes.

Though it'd be difficult to apply.

[Ma Deuce]

Aren't a lot of the people at Guantanamo classified as illegal combatants and so aren't POW's under the Geneva Convention? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a few requirments had to be met, such as wearing some form of uniform etc.

US officials have stated that the Taliban and Iraqi POWs are (supposedly) covered under the Geveva Convention. Al Quada fighters, on the other hand, are considered "illegal combatants", not POWs, and thus are not covered by the Geneva convention.

[Darth Wong]

both inside the country and out that Geneva Convention protections should not apply to their enemies?

Aren't a lot of the people at Guantanamo classified as illegal combatants and so aren't POW's under the Geneva Convention? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a few requirments had to be met, such as wearing some form of uniform etc.

Precisely. By running around constantly spewing these kinds of legalistic excuses (not to mention treating "Iraq" and "Terror" as one word), the American government has been spreading the message that you don't need to treat the enemy humanely. How can they pretend to be surprised when people act in the spirit of that message?

[PainRack]

Aren't a lot of the people at Guantanamo classified as illegal combatants and so aren't POW's under the Geneva Convention? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a few requirments had to be met, such as wearing some form of uniform etc.

There's a bloody problem with that theory.

if those people aren't POWs, then what the fuck are they doing in a military prison, being held by the military and being charged by military courts and laws?

If they were illegal combatents, the rule of law applies to them and they should had been transferred to a civilian agency. Hel, considering the lack of an extradition treaty, the US government cannot legally detain them(or at least, those captured in Afghanistan), much less the US military.

Once the US military accepts responsibility for them, charging them in military courts and under military laws, then they automatically become POWs.

[Currald]

Who exactly would we have signed this extradition treaty with? The Taliban? Some warlord? The Taliban was not the recognized government of Afganistan.

Not putting your "soliders" in uniform is essentially a coward's tactic, using women and children as human shields. This is reprehensible.

But back to the point of the thread, I have to agree that the government/corporate propaganda machine in the US has been going overtime painting the Iraqis as evil for the last decade. Couple that with the depictions of the muslim world since 9/11 and you get a strong anti-muslim sentiment in the US. Couple that with the extremely undisciplined and understaffed environment that was Abu Ghraib and you can see the results.

[The Kernel]

You guys are mistaken in thinking that the US government has been saying that the "illegal combatants" don't get Geneva protection. Yesterday at the hearings before the Senate Armed Services Comittee, on of the generals who spoke outlined the US policy in this regard. They said that the illegal combatants are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, but they will get most of them anyways (he didn't quite elaborate on what "most" means).

Now I firmly believe that there have been abuses going on at Guantanamo Bay, but Darth Wong's theory calls for the government to be sending a clear message to the armed forces that these people were not to be treated like regular POW's, and that is false, at least at the propeganda level.

[Korvan]

What bothers me about the whole thing is that a simple accusation of being a terrorist can lead to indefinate imprisionment. They don't even have to prove that you are a terrorist since, as a terrorist, you don't get to have a trial or lawyer.

[Darth Wong]

Now I firmly believe that there have been abuses going on at Guantanamo Bay, but Darth Wong's theory calls for the government to be sending a clear message to the armed forces that these people were not to be treated like regular POW's, and that is false, at least at the propeganda level.

You're splitting some mighty fine hairs by saying that "they are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection" is totally different from "they won't get Geneva Convention protection".

[Illuminatus Primus]

Technically as a non-uniform wearing combatant who attempts to blend in with the population, you're not entitled to protection. The military is legally permitted to summarily execute such people as spies. In fact, the Geneva Convention anticipates this; it was formulated to protect uniformed soldiers--insurgents who draw fire to the civilian population are not entitled as a means to discourage those strategies.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Anyway, that isn't to say torture is ever allowed. Either you're capturing uniformed soldiers as prisoners-of-war, executing spies, or you're holding people as criminals if they're civilians--by definition they must be if they're not uniformed and thus "real" soldiers.

Illegal combatant is a spin term. The idiot survivalists in Montana could be called illegal combatant--any heavily-armed gangster or white supremacist with an armory is an "illegal combatant." In which case the authorities return fire in the interest of self-defense. If captured, they're held as criminals under the law.

[The Kernel]

Now I firmly believe that there have been abuses going on at Guantanamo Bay, but Darth Wong's theory calls for the government to be sending a clear message to the armed forces that these people were not to be treated like regular POW's, and that is false, at least at the propeganda level.

You're splitting some mighty fine hairs by saying that "they are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection" is totally different from "they won't get Geneva Convention protection".

Considering that these statements aren't exactly widespread and the fucking Joint Armed Services Committee needed to have the situation clarified for them yesterday, I would say that your theory about widespread propoganda causing these incidents is rather farfetched. It's not impossible, but unfortunately extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Darth Wong]

Considering that these statements aren't exactly widespread and the fucking Joint Armed Services Committee needed to have the situation clarified for them yesterday, I would say that your theory about widespread propoganda causing these incidents is rather farfetched.

You must be joking. The fact that the ASC needed to have the situation clarified for them yesterday is PRECISELY what I'm talking about; the widespread public impression generated by their various public statements was that it should be OK to deny basic rights to terrorists, and that Iraq = Terror. THAT was my argument in the first post.

[The Kernel]

Considering that these statements aren't exactly widespread and the fucking Joint Armed Services Committee needed to have the situation clarified for them yesterday, I would say that your theory about widespread propoganda causing these incidents is rather farfetched.

You must be joking. The fact that the ASC needed to have the situation clarified for them yesterday is PRECISELY what I'm talking about; the widespread public impression generated by their various public statements was that it should be OK to deny basic rights to terrorists, and that Iraq = Terror. THAT was my argument in the first post.

Your point is only relevent if the higher ups in the government intentionally caused that widespread public impression. I grant you that it exists (trust me, I've met enough people who think we should nuke the Middle East to believe it) but how you got from that attitude existing in the United States to the White House encouraging it I don't understand. Do you have a more direct link?

[Darth Wong]

Your point is only relevent if the higher ups in the government intentionally caused that widespread public impression. I grant you that it exists (trust me, I've met enough people who think we should nuke the Middle East to believe it) but how you got from that attitude existing in the United States to the White House encouraging it I don't understand.

What's hard to understand about it? The administration basically rolled its eyes every time someone criticized their policy of denying basic rights to Guantanamo detainees; is it that hard to draw the connection between that and "terrorists don't get basic rights?"

Do you have a more direct link?

I don't see why you need anything more direct than the administration's repeated public denials that basic rights should apply to the Guantanamo detainees.

[The Kernel]

What's hard to understand about it? The administration basically rolled its eyes every time someone criticized their policy of denying basic rights to Guantanamo detainees; is it that hard to draw the connection between that and "terrorists don't get basic rights?"

What exactly are you referring to? Is there a specific statement by someone in Bush's cabinet that I'm missing? Here's the situation as I recall it:

1) Prisoners get taken to Guantanamo Bay.
2) Administration justifies holding them without lawyers by saying they are illegal combatants, but assures the public that they are being well treated.
3) Several prisoners are released who claim they were beaten, but the officials in Gitmo deny it, as does the Bush Administration.
4) Iraq abuses happen.
5) Clarification is given before the Armed Services Comittee that although the prisoners that are classified as "illegal combatants" aren't entitled to protections under Geneva, they will get it anyways.
6) To this day, no proof of the abuse of illegal combatants has been found (although there is plenty from the regular prisoners and POW's).

What am I missing here? When has the Bush Administration even admitted to abusing illegal combatants? A

[Darth Wong]

You're missing the whole point, which is that the administration has constantly said that Iraq = Terror = Illegal Combatants, and that illegal combatants do not get basic rights.

[Keevan_Colton]

Lets also remember an important part of all this:

Be accused of conspiring to commit murder (terrorism) = thrown into the legal black hole and left to rot without any process or trial.

Commit murder = get a lawyer, a trail and a whole shitload of due process.

Now, in one you have the possible thought of commiting an act, and the other you have an action which one should land you deeper in shit?

[The Kernel]

You're missing the whole point, which is that the administration has constantly said that Iraq = Terror = Illegal Combatants, and that illegal combatants do not get basic rights.

Are you referring to the prisoners captured during the initial invasion or Al-Sadr's forces? I'm actually not sure how the rebel fighters are being classified, do you have a link to an official statement about this?

[Darth Wong]

You're missing the whole point, which is that the administration has constantly said that Iraq = Terror = Illegal Combatants, and that illegal combatants do not get basic rights.

Are you referring to the prisoners captured during the initial invasion or Al-Sadr's forces? I'm actually not sure how the rebel fighters are being classified, do you have a link to an official statement about this?

Obviously, they never come right out and say "Iraq = Terror = Illegal Combatants". But you know as well as I that they have worked to consistently generate this impression. For example, George W. Bush and all of his cronies using the terms "War in Iraq" and "War on Terror" and "Al Quaeda" and "World Trade Center" interchangeably as if they're all linked.

[The Kernel]

Lets also remember an important part of all this:

Be accused of conspiring to commit murder (terrorism) = thrown into the legal black hole and left to rot without any process or trial.

Commit murder = get a lawyer, a trail and a whole shitload of due process.

Now, in one you have the possible thought of commiting an act, and the other you have an action which one should land you deeper in shit?

Hey, I don't think anyone is arguing that the way we treat the suspected terrorists is right, I just want to clarify whether the Iraq abuses had anything to do with the labelling of certain fighters as terrorists thus removing any rights granted them under Geneva. If there is a link, then that is simply one more reason to crucify Bush.

[The Kernel]

Obviously, they never come right out and say "Iraq = Terror = Illegal Combatants". But you know as well as I that they have worked to consistently generate this impression. For example, George W. Bush and all of his cronies using the terms "War in Iraq" and "War on Terror" and "Al Quaeda" and "World Trade Center" interchangeably as if they're all linked.

And I agree with you that the Bush administration has been fanning the flames of hatred with regards to terrorists and Iraq, but you started this thread on the presumption that they might be held officially accountable, and without a direct link, it is difficult to make that accusation. I know you said "irrespective of a paper trail" but without even the most tenuous of official statements to support it, such an accusation would be immediately dismissed as liberal propoganda.

Let me make this clear: I DO agree with you on this subject. But then, I also agree that Bush should take personal responsibility for the abuses simply as the C-in-C which is obviously not happening.

[Darth Wong]

And I agree with you that the Bush administration has been fanning the flames of hatred with regards to terrorists and Iraq, but you started this thread on the presumption that they might be held officially accountable,

Actually, I just said "at fault", which I assumed people would interpret in the moral sense of "at fault", not the legalistic sense. I never said that they'd be able to make that stick officially.

[Keevan_Colton]

After all, its only legally really bad to lie about sex not war that costs thousands of lives.