Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)

[Michael Kalus]

Jim Dixon wrote:

>If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with
>crimes?  It is no crime to be an enemy soldier.
>
>  
>
According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are 
"unlawful enemy combattants".


>However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until the conflict is over.
>This certainly is what happened in the two world wars, at least in Europe;
>it also happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars.
>
>If these are members of al-Quaeda and prisoners of war, should they not be
>released when and only when al-Quaeda declares the conflict over?  Would
>not a US government releasing them before the end of the war be derelict
>in its duty?
>  
>

The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they 
should be released, no? If they are terrorists and they have proof of 
this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should 
be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since 
when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties).

>If they are instead unlawful combatants because they have violated the
>Geneva conventions (because they have carried arms in battle but discarded
>them and hid among civilians, say) or if they are spies (out of uniform,
>engaged in espionage), is the US not being somewhat charitable in treating
>them as POWs?
>
>  
>

But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged 
with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually 
convict them?

>If they are neither POWs nor unlawful combatants nor spies, if they are
>just terrorists, why is the US obliged to treat them as though they are
>in the United States?  Presumably they were captured outside the US and
>were not taken into the US after capture.  Why does the US military have
>to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights?  They are not
>citizens or physically present in the United States.
>
>  
>
Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. 
International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be 
allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I 
might require. This right has not been given.

Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US 
constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly violated 
as well.


>If any of those at Guantanamo is an American citizen, then of course he
>should be returned to the States and tried for carrying arms against his
>country.  Treason, isn't it?
>
>  
>
Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have been 
brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least 
appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did 
anything wrong.


>Let us say that by agreement between the US and the Afghan government
>(which no one seems to deny is the rightful government of the country)
>terrorists captured in Afghanistan are being held in Guantanamo.  Why
>should US law apply instead of Afghan law?
>  
>
It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans 
should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not happening?


>I know for a fact that conditions in Afghan jails are nowhere near as
>comfortable as those in Guantanamo.
>
>  
>
May as it be, but that still doesn't make the actions of the US 
Government right. Or are you telling me right now that Guantanamo Bay 
and Diego Garcia are part of a humanitarian mission?


>An American friend of mine spent six months in a jail in Kabul.  If you
>didn't buy food from the guards, you starved. If you bought coal from them
>to heat your cell -- tiny windows high in thick stone walls, so no real
>ventilation -- you were slowly poisoned by carbon monoxide.  If you
>didn't, you froze.  It's cold in Kabul in the winter.
>
>  
>
Bad conditions, so help the Afghani government to improve the conditions.

Michael