Unlawful combatants

[archiemac]

What's the diffrence between a prisoner of war and an 'unlawful combatant'? Is there a dept in the Pentagon whose job it is to come up with appropriate soundbite names?

[indobrit]

None, really. It is a legal nicety dreamed up to give a spurious legitimacy to what the civilised world is condemning wholesale. The argument is simple: the prisoners are alleged criminals; if they are not "prisoners of war" with rights and responsibilities by international law (e.g. the Geneva Convention) and by USA national law, then they are "ordinary prisoners", again with rights and responsibilities guaranteed by national and international law. The USA authorities have not dared bring their various prisoners to the USA mainland: the USA citizen John Robert Lindh is being questioned aboard a USA warship in the Indian Ocean, and there appear to be no plans to bring him to USA soil; other, non-USA prisoners (including UK folk) are being held at the Guant�namo USA Naval Base in Cuba, which is unique in being the only piece of sovereign USA territory where the laws of the USA do not apply, since it is entirely under military jurisdiction. Moreover, if the various prisoners WERE to be brought to the USA mainland, the various civil rights groups in that country would find it easier to demand access, etc., something that the USA authorities appear to wish to avoid at all costs. We can but sit and await the outcome of this travesty of justice. The people responsible for the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 are people whom I would scarcely acknowledge as members as the same species as me; the USA authorities have forgotten that we should not lower ourselves to their level.

[indobrit]

To answer your second question: there probably *is* a USA Department of Defence department given over solely to the manufacture of "soundbites", acronyms, etc., just as the Canadian authorities definitely *do* have a department with the sole job of coming up with names, abbreviations, acronyms, etc., that work in both English and French, e.g. "Immigration Canada", which is the same in both languages.

[incitatus]

There is very strong evidence for the "department of ridiculous names" within the Pentagon. Look at the macho names they give all overseas operations. Desert Storm was bad enough, bet everything since has got worse. Whoever thinks of them cannot have read Freud or they would not signal the American millitary's sexual inadequacy in quite so direct a fashion. Also think of the wars that have been described as "police actions" the soldiers described as "military advisers" etc. etc.
The scary bit is wondering if the American public really are stupid enough to swallow it...

[woolley]

I haven't seen any evidence so far that convinces me that the American public won't believe every bit of old clap trap they're told - are they brainwashed from birth or what? They certainly think they can do what they like. And how many 'unlawful combatants' has the US sent into other countries to carry out atrocities in the name of 'freedom' as defined by the US?

[rekstout]

I would have thought that the difference is that a POW can only be so if they are fighting for a recognised state against a recognised state where a formal declaration of war has been made.

Otherwise most criminals/terrorists (animal rights activists, IRA, Basque separatists etc.) could be considered POWs if their motive was remotely political.

The reason POWs are treated differently from criminals is that a POW (e.g. a soldier) may have had no choice in doing what they were doing as they could be a conscript/pressganged. A criminal or terrorist (usually) has freewill in their actions and therefore is personally answerable.

[incitatus]

POWs are given legal status because they are undertaking a criminal act at the behest of a state. Terrorists are given legal status as criminals within a state (or in another state where extraditable). What the US has done is deny both sets of rights to the cuba detainees.
Rekstout's definition takes us back to the days before the Geneva convention....because all you need do in order to maltreat or torture your prisoners is to refuse to recognise a state of war, or to refuse to recognise a state. That, old thing, is barbarism. One should be judged by how one treats ones enemies or inferiors, not by how one treats one's friends.
The US should make up its mind ... criminal or POW, but one of the two sets of rights should apply.

[steveUSA]

I find this debate comical. John Walker Lindh has been returned to the United States because he is a US citizen. The other prisoners remain in Cuba. Do you really think they are being mistreated? If so, how so? How many of them had hot and cold running (and clean) water in Afghanistan? Regardless, these men are criminals, but not US citizens. Consequently, they do not possess the same rights as someone held by police in the USA proper. In addition, I believe that the President has decided to use the military justice system to try these people, which is in some ways (such as individual rights) quite different from our civilian system. The US is not resorting to barbarism, as some might try to suggest. (I think the events of 9/11 is a better definition of barbarism.) Can you imagine the political consequences of just one instance of mistreating one of these prisoners? No one is that stupid.

[incitatus]

So one set of rights for the us, one for other people. Can you imagine the fuss the Yanks would make if we applied that to US citizens? The debate is not wether the people are being maltreated (how could we tell?) but as to wether they are accorded the same rights as any other human. It seems not. Do they have access to lawyers? Are they aware of their rights? Are they members of the American military? if not why are they subject to military justice. And no, they are not criminals. They are SUSPECTED criminals, and so INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Young Steves Naivety is touching, but the debate is far from comical. Closer to tragic.

[indobrit]

To Steve in the USA: Guant�namo Bay Naval Base is defined under USA law as being Cuban soil under USA jurisdiction, wherein the laws and usages of the USA shall apply. Moreover, under USA law (as indeed under UK law, from which USA law originates), the rights (and responsibilities) of a person who is held on suspicion of criminality are exactly the same, regardless of that person's nationality. I have no quarrel with the USA's desire to bring to book those who are/were responsible for the events of Tuesday 11th Septembe 2001 (indeed, my long-held opposition to capital punishment has wavered since that date, although I still fundamentally oppose it). Where I get VERY queasy is the abject denial of all accepted norms of civilised behaviour by a state that consistently, vociferously, and some would say objectionably trumpets itself as being in the first rank of civilised nations, and its self-arrogated right to rule the planet. No single state is in charge of planet Earth, nor should any single state ever be allowed to so be, for that way lies perdition, dictatorship, and tyranny. Try your prisoners, by all means - but try them according to the common laws and usages of your land, not on the basis of some damned Sara Lee cake mix recipe, "just add two eggs and water" style of instant judicial mockery. The days of the Wild West are long gone (thoughtful students of history will know that, in fact, they never existed). You are dealing with law at the very highest level. I repeat a point that I have made in another place: one of the distinguishing marks of any civilised society is not how well it receives its friends, but how well it treats its enemies. Grow up.

[USAgentleman]

I detect a very large Anti-American sentiment on these boards. You are entitled to them, of course; but to practically hurl invectives is NOT necessary. The U.S. is doing what it feels is best for America. What country would do any less? The fact of the matter is, the detainees are neither being maltreated nor mistreated. Their status is cloudy at the moment, but does that alone allow for the label 'travesty of justice?' I think not. The alternative would be to release them, a foolish thing for any country to do. No government is flawless, but in the U.S., an administration that badly errs can be removed from office at worst, and not get re-elected at best. At the moment, the only thing that people can really do is calmly wait and see. If this Administration messes up badly, we'll all know it! But until such time, if it ever comes (which I doubt), constant criticism is just taken as further evidence of European incompetency. The best thing that both Americans and Europeans(I'm considering the UK as part of Europe, although not all would agree) can do is educate ourselves. Peace.

[USAgentleman]

prisoner of war-this could also be called a lawful combatant (while detained, anyway). The Geneva Conventions were quite clear in their definitions of POWs, and to be classified as one, one must fit the following criteria: "(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; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." By this definition, it seems as though members of the Taliban, as the de facto(although unrecognized) rulers of Afghanistan, fit this criteria, and thus MIGHT be considered POWs. unlawful combatant - this term comes from a legal precedent set in a US Supreme Court ruling on a 1942 case involving 8 Nazi sabateurs who sneaked into the U.S. by submarine. The court upheld their convictions (and trial by military tribunal), and characterized them as unlawful combatants, defined as an "enemy ... who, without uniform, comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property." So, it seems clear that Al Queda fighters fit this criteria. But why doesn't the US want to classify them as such? See below.

[USAgentleman]

To really understand the American stance, you have to realize WHY the US doesn't want to give them POW status. Three reasons: 1.) Interrogation-the Geneva Conventions state that POWs are entitled to give only limited information (name, rank, dob, etc. The US clearly wants to interrogate these people to prevent further attacks. 2.) Military Tribunal-The US wants these people tried by military tribunal for reasons which the government gave late last year. Again, there is a legal precedent for doing so, a 1942 case Ex Parte Quirin. 3.) Repatriation-The Geneva Conventions provide that once hostilities end, the combatants are free to return to their countries. This is something that US wants to avoid in this case, as the detainees would proceed to regroup and plot further terrorist attacks. As far as the debate on Guantanamo Bay...it is a US military installation, on Cuban soil, leased indefinitely to the U.S. Government. While it is under US jurisdiction, it is outside of the reach of the U.S. courts, or the Judicial Branch. They are NOT deemed to have entered the United States, and could only appeal to the Executive Branch for release, etc. There really is no reason to suggest at this time that these actions are inappropriate. The detainees are being handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and with the safety of the US in mind. Non-Americans can be denied access to our courts, as has been done in this case. While not everyone (non-Americans, in particular) may agree with their treatment, it is hardly 'barbaric", nor a"tragic." It is only misinformation (or simply plain ignorance) that leads people to believe such. I should hope that, in the future, we will all be better informed before entering into debates about American Law. Americans are only trying to protect themselves. Should they be faulted for doing so? Of course not, as they are following international laws, however slowly it may be doing so.