Timelordwho wrote:
If you misunderstood my implication, it was that POWs, (including unlawful combatants) are required to be given a fair trial as per the Geneva Convention in order for any sentencing of the aforementioned.
Yes. But only if they committed some other crime beyond simply being a party to the conflict. Your original statement certainly seemed to be a backhanded attack on the detainment of prisoners in Gitmo, with the implication that we should be granting them trials or releasing them.
If you didn't mean that, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. I've just run into that exact argument so many times, that it tends to jump out at me. Um... And for the record, if you weren't making that point, then what were you talking about?
Quote:
But I still have no idea how you could have misread or misunderstood
Because you didn't say *what* they should be given a trial for. In the absence of such, I assumed you simply referred to it being wrong not to give them a trial before detaining them at all. I could be wrong in that assumption, certainly, but it's not like you said "If an imprisoned combatant commits a crime, he must be given a fair trial", and frankly, if you had, it would have been kinda out from left field. Is there anyone actually arguing that they shouldn't? The only debate I've ever heard on this is whether they should receive a trial just to determine if they should be detained...
Quote:
It was pretty clear.
No. It really wasn't. Well. It was, actually. In context you certainly seemed to be suggesting that it's a violation of the Geneva Convention for a government to detain enemy combatants without first giving them a trail. I'll again ask: If that's not what you meant, then what on earth were you talking about, and why did you think it was relevant?
Quote:
If you need further clarification:
The Geneva convention wrote:
A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court."
Um... Could you specify where that is found? That language does not exist in either the 3rd or the 4th Geneva Conventions. I'll point out that the page you linked isn't actually the text of the Convention, but rather an opinion paper written about it.
The relevant portion is in the fourth Geneva Convention, which specifically deals with "civilians" (people who do not qualify as POWs)
Quote:
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.
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.
In other words. They can be detained "for the duration" (as long as they are deemed to be a danger to the detaining power). They can be held without communication and without other rights and protections. They cannot be tortured and must be treated humanely, and if they are charged with a crime, must be given a fair trial. The point is that they don't have to be charged in order to be detained.
The failure to get this aspect of the Geneva Conventions is responsible for pretty much the entire Gitmo issue. There is no violation. We are, in fact, exactly following the Convention in question. But hey! What do I know? All I've done is actually read the documents themselves, instead of reading what other people say they say (or don't say). Silly me... ;)
Edited, Feb 18th 2010 7:34pm by gbaji
