5 ms·
There are a lot of misconceptions here, both in the original article and many of the comments. Most of them derive from assuming that this is some type of "crim
by Turing_Machine 5y ago
There are a lot of misconceptions here, both in the original article and many of the comments. Most of them derive from assuming that this is some type of "crime" situation that automatically falls into the purview of the civilian courts, with Miranda rights and all that stuff. That is wrong. A completely separate system of jurisprudence is involved.
There are two basic statuses for captured combatants. The first is "prisoner of war". There are rules about how POWs may be treated, but they don't include anything like a "fair trial". It is, in fact, illegal to put POWs on trial. Instead, they are supposed to be treated humanely and repatriated after hostilities have ceased. The catch here is that to be entitled to POW status the combatant must abide by the so-called laws of war, including bearing arms openly in the field (i.e, not hiding among civilians) and wearing a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance (something like a purple armband would be enough -- it just has to be something that clearly identifies you as "not a civilian" as seen from a distance).
The second status is that of the so-called "unlawful combatant". This includes pirates, spies, terrorists, or anyone else who engages in hostilities without wearing a uniform or insignia, or who engages in other actions in violation of the laws of war (for example, deliberately attacking civilians, hiding among the civilian population, falsely wearing a symbol that indicates that the combatant is a medic, and so on).
Unlawful combatants have no rights of any kind. They may be detained indefinitely (even after hostilities have ceased), tried by a military tribunal, or even be summarily executed on the spot when captured.
This basic framework has been the rule for centuries, and was most recently codified by the Geneva Conventions. It's not some new policy that the United States made up.
- tromp 5y ago> Unlawful combatants have no rights of any kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant begs to differ: "An individual who is not a lawful combatant, who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
- Turing_Machine 5y agoDid you actually read this? In the case of trial is not the same thing as entitled to a trial. > After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual is not a lawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the individual the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. (emphasis mine) Edit to add this P.S: I'm not going to slam you for citing Wikipedia, but I will take off points for not mentioning (or checking, perhaps) that the original source is an opinion piece written by a lawyer -- not a law, treaty, court decision, or anything else that has actual weight.
- LatteLazy 5y agoPiracy, espionage (spying) etc are crimes and people who commit them are routinely prosecuted in civilian courts.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago> Piracy, espionage (spying) etc are crimes In peacetime, yes. Not in a combat situation.
- LatteLazy 5y agoWell, they're crimes wherever they happen. They don't stop being crimes in combat. A spy is a spy even if people are shooting at him, her, or they. And I'm pretty sure guantanamo isn't a live combat environment...
- redis_mlc 5y agoWell, often they're dropped when questions about methods, like Stingers, or extreme embarrassment, arise. (A UK secretary working for the MoD gave US enrichment secrets to Russia, saving them 4 years in developing the bomb. She was never prosecuted because of the embarrassment. She had been indoctrinated into Marxism by her father, so take that as a warning.)