4 ms·

Doesn't matter. What matters is was there any system of justice, even military justice, or were people detained and absurd with reckless disregard for potential

by hgsgm 4y ago

Doesn't matter. What matters is was there any system of justice, even military justice, or were people detained and absurd with reckless disregard for potential innocence. Detaining people as POWs, and treating them well, prevents them from causing harm without oppressing innocents.

nradov 4y ago
Those people were not detained as prisoners of war but as unlawful combatants. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. (I am not making any argument about the morality of this situation, just explaining the legal reality.)
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. Incorrect – this issue was specifically litigated; they are entitled under international law, because the war is war where one of the belligerents is not a state, occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions, to the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which applies to “conflicts not of an international character”. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
- ImHereToVote 4y ago
  What evidence is there that the prisoners were members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda?
  - nradov 4y ago
    The evidence varies by case. For some prisoners there is very little evidence, or at least none that would be admissible in a legitimate civilian criminal court. Some of the prisoners may be innocent. But as a practical matter the decisions aren't being made based on evidence. There is non-zero risk that the prisoners could be dangerous and no US state or foreign country is willing to take the political risk of accepting them. And the US federal government can't really force anyone to take them.
    - ImHereToVote 4y ago
      I love democracy.
    - cies 4y ago
      "Rules-based international order" my ass
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  > unlawful combatants. [...] therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. "We'll make up this meaningless word, and this will allow us to keep people with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL and torture them for 20 fucking years!" The whole thing is horrifying. It makes a mockery of the law and of morality.

by hgsgm 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

Those people were not detained as prisoners of war but as unlawful combatants. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. (I am not making any argument about the morality of this situation, just explaining the legal reality.)

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. Incorrect – this issue was specifically litigated; they are entitled under international law, because the war is war where one of the belligerents is not a state, occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions, to the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which applies to “conflicts not of an international character”. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
ImHereToVote 4y ago
What evidence is there that the prisoners were members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda?
- nradov 4y ago
  The evidence varies by case. For some prisoners there is very little evidence, or at least none that would be admissible in a legitimate civilian criminal court. Some of the prisoners may be innocent. But as a practical matter the decisions aren't being made based on evidence. There is non-zero risk that the prisoners could be dangerous and no US state or foreign country is willing to take the political risk of accepting them. And the US federal government can't really force anyone to take them.
  - ImHereToVote 4y ago
    I love democracy.
  - cies 4y ago
    "Rules-based international order" my ass
TomSwirly 4y ago
> unlawful combatants. [...] therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. "We'll make up this meaningless word, and this will allow us to keep people with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL and torture them for 20 fucking years!" The whole thing is horrifying. It makes a mockery of the law and of morality.