6 ms·

Please explain this, I really don't understand this argument: >> I find Guantanamo morally indefensible. Guantanamo -- afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in

by berntb 10y ago

Please explain this, I really don't understand this argument: >> I find Guantanamo morally indefensible. Guantanamo -- afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war. E.g. the conflict in Afghanistan is still active. So what is the problem? (Then we have the whole point about the people at Guantanamo being combatants that didn't follow the war of laws. Do they have any rights, at all? Please use very good primary sources if you somehow argue that combatants that targets civilians have more rights than prisoners of war... That is contradicting the idea of those laws.)

dpark 10y ago
The fundamental problem is that we are not at war with any nation here. We have repeatedly stated that we are at war with terrorism. So we've got a bunch of citizens of foreign nations that we took captive on the suspicion that they were engaged in terrorist activity, but we can't prove it. They aren't really prisoners of war, and there is no war at the end of which we can reasonably expect an exchange of prisoners. They're stuck in indefinite limbo with no trial and no expectation of release. I don't know how we can defend indefinite detention of people on the suspicion that they might have engaged in terrorist activity. It's basically just kidnapping to hold them this way forever. I think there's a legitimate argument that taking them captive to interrogate them is reasonable, and perhaps even some moderate time of detention. Giving them a trial would also be reasonable. I don't think there's a legitimate argument for holding foreign nationals without trial indefinitely.
- berntb 10y ago
  Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". You also claim that the laws of war are not applicable to the remaining types of military conflicts (with clans/tribes, any organization that is geographically spread, etc, etc). Do you have references? [Edit: The references need to show that the laws of war don't apply to these other conflicts, too.] Also not that the world's law experts don't seem to agree [Edit: with you. See link in edit at bottom.] (Note that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. We also need a new word for most of the military conflicts through history -- and today. And so on.) (Also, you shouldn't argue against what politicians say in public speeches, for the same reason you shouldn't believe advertisements...) ---- Re Guantanamo: You ignored my argument. Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=1F24D0C949FE1B83C12563CD0051B48C https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... ] The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition. The Taliban and their allies are still fighting. Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references... [Edit: Here seems to be the relevant definitions in USA, I saw in another place that their High Court argued that the Geneva conventions was relevant under US law also for unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... ]
  - dpark 10y ago
    > Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. Certainly we can be at war with a non-state actor (we clearly are). But our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear. For wars not against nation states, there must still be some sort of due process for prisoners. The idea that being at war with some entity gives us the right to retain arbitrary people indefinitely, without even proving that they have participated in that entity, is morally unacceptable. > Do you have references? The world's law experts don't seem to agree... Do you have an references to the claim that law experts don't agree? There are a few treaties about war prisoners but they apply to signatories, which clans etc are not. Beyond that, "laws of war" have historically been defined by the victors. I'm not aware of a body of law that applies to wars universally, nor do I believe one could exist. (Who could enforce it?) > that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. You could argue that for civil wars at least both sides would effectively be signatories if the nation as a whole was a signatory before the war began. > You also claim that the Taliban never was a government? They had control of a large part of Afghanistan. And they are still fighting, along with their allies. I assume you don't argue that a war stops being a war when one side lose control of their capital? I don't claim any of that. I claim that Afghanistan is at least officially no longer ruled by the Taliban. We don't recognize them as the legitimate government. If we accept that we are no longer at war with Afghanistan then we must according to the Geneva conventions release any prisoners of war captured during the war with Afghanistan. Any enemy combatants not deemed prisoners of war should be given some sort of due process. Again, the idea that being at war against terrorism gives us the right to indefinitely detain arbitrary people is morally unacceptable. > You ignored my argument. > Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.... ] > The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition. > The Taliban and their allies are still fighting. > Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references... I don't see that I made any of those claims, nor do I feel like I ignored your argument. I don't believe that being a signatory on the Geneva convention in any way gives us a right to indefinitely detain people with no reasonable path to release and no proof of involvement in the conflict. Even if legally we can make that argument, I think it's morally repugnant.
jimbokun 10y ago
"Then we have the whole point about the people at Guantanamo being combatants that didn't follow the war of laws." The problem is we know now many of the people at Guantanamo do not fit that description. And we don't know how many do and how many don't, because there is no legal process to make the determination. After WWII, at least there was some kind of war crimes tribunal before executing people for war crimes. But Guantanamo is some kind of horrific, Kafka-esque limbo, where people can be sent for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or accused by someone just wanting to collect a bounty, where people can be held forever and tortured on a whim, with no prospect for any kind of closure, ever.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> But Guantanamo is some kind of horrific, Kafka-esque limbo You ignored the main point on what you comment on. To quote myself: afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war >> The problem is we know now many of the people at Guantanamo do not fit that description. Of course, most everyone claim to be innocent everywhere. Is there a legal process on a battle field when POWs are taken? (Rhetorical question.) (I might note that I can't see how Guantanamo is much worse than the rest of the horrible US prison system.) Here is the US law about unlawful combatants, etc. It seems the US is bound to the Geneva Convention also for them, according to their Supreme court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... Please discuss it with the law professors in the Supreme Court, they claim that the US handling also of unlawful combatants must follow the Geneva Conventions.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > You ignored the main point on what you comment on. To quote myself: afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war We have detained people that we know are not and were not enemy combatants. Your assertion that we can detain enemy combatants is not without merit. The foundation of that claim is unsound, though, because we know we are detaining people who are not enemy combatants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detaine...

by berntb 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

The fundamental problem is that we are not at war with any nation here. We have repeatedly stated that we are at war with terrorism. So we've got a bunch of citizens of foreign nations that we took captive on the suspicion that they were engaged in terrorist activity, but we can't prove it. They aren't really prisoners of war, and there is no war at the end of which we can reasonably expect an exchange of prisoners. They're stuck in indefinite limbo with no trial and no expectation of release. I don't know how we can defend indefinite detention of people on the suspicion that they might have engaged in terrorist activity. It's basically just kidnapping to hold them this way forever. I think there's a legitimate argument that taking them captive to interrogate them is reasonable, and perhaps even some moderate time of detention. Giving them a trial would also be reasonable. I don't think there's a legitimate argument for holding foreign nationals without trial indefinitely.

berntb 10y ago
Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". You also claim that the laws of war are not applicable to the remaining types of military conflicts (with clans/tribes, any organization that is geographically spread, etc, etc). Do you have references? [Edit: The references need to show that the laws of war don't apply to these other conflicts, too.] Also not that the world's law experts don't seem to agree [Edit: with you. See link in edit at bottom.] (Note that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. We also need a new word for most of the military conflicts through history -- and today. And so on.) (Also, you shouldn't argue against what politicians say in public speeches, for the same reason you shouldn't believe advertisements...) ---- Re Guantanamo: You ignored my argument. Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=1F24D0C949FE1B83C12563CD0051B48C https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... ] The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition. The Taliban and their allies are still fighting. Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references... [Edit: Here seems to be the relevant definitions in USA, I saw in another place that their High Court argued that the Geneva conventions was relevant under US law also for unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... ]
- dpark 10y ago
  > Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. Certainly we can be at war with a non-state actor (we clearly are). But our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear. For wars not against nation states, there must still be some sort of due process for prisoners. The idea that being at war with some entity gives us the right to retain arbitrary people indefinitely, without even proving that they have participated in that entity, is morally unacceptable. > Do you have references? The world's law experts don't seem to agree... Do you have an references to the claim that law experts don't agree? There are a few treaties about war prisoners but they apply to signatories, which clans etc are not. Beyond that, "laws of war" have historically been defined by the victors. I'm not aware of a body of law that applies to wars universally, nor do I believe one could exist. (Who could enforce it?) > that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. You could argue that for civil wars at least both sides would effectively be signatories if the nation as a whole was a signatory before the war began. > You also claim that the Taliban never was a government? They had control of a large part of Afghanistan. And they are still fighting, along with their allies. I assume you don't argue that a war stops being a war when one side lose control of their capital? I don't claim any of that. I claim that Afghanistan is at least officially no longer ruled by the Taliban. We don't recognize them as the legitimate government. If we accept that we are no longer at war with Afghanistan then we must according to the Geneva conventions release any prisoners of war captured during the war with Afghanistan. Any enemy combatants not deemed prisoners of war should be given some sort of due process. Again, the idea that being at war against terrorism gives us the right to indefinitely detain arbitrary people is morally unacceptable. > You ignored my argument. > Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.... ] > The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition. > The Taliban and their allies are still fighting. > Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references... I don't see that I made any of those claims, nor do I feel like I ignored your argument. I don't believe that being a signatory on the Geneva convention in any way gives us a right to indefinitely detain people with no reasonable path to release and no proof of involvement in the conflict. Even if legally we can make that argument, I think it's morally repugnant.

jimbokun 10y ago

"Then we have the whole point about the people at Guantanamo being combatants that didn't follow the war of laws." The problem is we know now many of the people at Guantanamo do not fit that description. And we don't know how many do and how many don't, because there is no legal process to make the determination. After WWII, at least there was some kind of war crimes tribunal before executing people for war crimes. But Guantanamo is some kind of horrific, Kafka-esque limbo, where people can be sent for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or accused by someone just wanting to collect a bounty, where people can be held forever and tortured on a whim, with no prospect for any kind of closure, ever.

berntb 10y ago
>> But Guantanamo is some kind of horrific, Kafka-esque limbo You ignored the main point on what you comment on. To quote myself: afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war >> The problem is we know now many of the people at Guantanamo do not fit that description. Of course, most everyone claim to be innocent everywhere. Is there a legal process on a battle field when POWs are taken? (Rhetorical question.) (I might note that I can't see how Guantanamo is much worse than the rest of the horrible US prison system.) Here is the US law about unlawful combatants, etc. It seems the US is bound to the Geneva Convention also for them, according to their Supreme court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... Please discuss it with the law professors in the Supreme Court, they claim that the US handling also of unlawful combatants must follow the Geneva Conventions.
- dpark 10y ago
  > You ignored the main point on what you comment on. To quote myself: afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war We have detained people that we know are not and were not enemy combatants. Your assertion that we can detain enemy combatants is not without merit. The foundation of that claim is unsound, though, because we know we are detaining people who are not enemy combatants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detaine...