6 ms·

Please don't take this as a defense of everything America has done: The US is currently at war with both Al Qaida and the Taliban. Members of these organizatio

• foxylad 13y ago
  The problem is that these are organisations, not sovereign states. It's a bit like saying that since the US has declared a war on drugs, it should be able to hold drug dealers forever without trial. According to him, this guy went to Afganistan for a cheap medical procedure and bounty hunters handed him in as a foreign combatant. None of us knows whether this is true or not, but the issue is that suspending judicial procedure is going to lead to horrific injustice - even if you're at war. And the Taliban would never swap a high value American hostage for anyone, particularly if it was someone they'd never heard of.
  • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    States are perfectly within their legal right to declare war on organizations. If the US were to declare war on FARC or Los Zetas, then yes the US government could detain prisoners until the end of hostilities. (Note that that's not the same as indefinitely) Whether or not this guy was actually fighting with Taliban or Al Qaida is an important issue, but not really at the heart of the broader issue regarding Guantanamo detainees.
    • rhizome 13y ago
      but not really at the heart of the broader issue regarding Guantanamo detainees. Then don't invoke it.
      • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Tell that to the person who invoked it!
        • rhizome 13y ago
          Did he edit his comment or something? I'm not seeing the reference.
          • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
            According to him, this guy went to Afganistan for a cheap medical procedure and bounty hunters handed him in as a foreign combatant. None of us knows whether this is true or not, but the issue is that suspending judicial procedure is going to lead to horrific injustice - even if you're at war.
            • rhizome 13y ago
              That's a pretty glancing reference. Would it have been better to say that suspending judicial procedure as evidenced by the experience of Adnan Latif constituted a horrific injustice?
            • deleted 13y ago
              [deleted]
    • PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Something can very well be legal and still be a horrific injustice. And to detain someone because you're supposedly at war with them and they with you, without any trial to actually prove that this is the case, is horribly injust no matter how I look at it. If this is legal, then that just makes the laws that make it legal and the people that obey them horribly injust.
      • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Each detainee supposedly had a tribunal to establish that their detainment was legitimate and to determine their detainee status. If anyone is being held without cause, or if the tribunals were insufficiently thorough, then yes it would be a horrible injustice!
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• andreasvc 13y ago
  Have you read the article? This man had nothing to do with terrorism, and was only in Guantanamo because of the perverse incentive of bounties given for supposed terrorists. It is completely bizarre that he was not set free when this became clear.
• anonymoushn 13y ago
  The US has not declared war for over 50 years.
  • rurban 13y ago
    The US is in state of emergency, essential martial law since March 9, 1933. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#Ongoing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#Ongoing
    • sneak 13y ago
      what the fuck
    • darklajid 13y ago
      And just for the sake of it, they did it AGAIN in 2001? I mean.. I'm not quite sure if I trust Wikipedia here. How can you explain this combination: United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b). United States declared a state of emergency on September 11, 2001, this state of emergency has been maintained without pause into the present.[62] --- It's like .. an ongoing double emergency?
      • squozzer 13y ago
        You mean double (not so) secret emergency.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > The US is in state of emergency, essential martial law since March 9, 1933. No, its not. That it, it is in a declared state of emergency (often more than one -- sometimes very many at a time) since then, but neither the one declared March 9, 1933, nor all the rest combined create "essential martial law". Each such declaration invokes specific statutory emergency powers, and while (e.g., under the Insurrection Act) those powers could include martial law or something like it, none currently in force do.
• phaus 13y ago
  >What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side. This shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation. The Taliban and Al Qaida were always criminals. Its not like they are simply members of the Afghan and Iraqi armies that were present before the United States entered, they are a small minority of religious extremists that that are attempting to impose their idiotic beliefs on other nations. With that in mind, those who are in Guantanamo that are suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaida should not be held indefinitely without charges or trial. If we have evidence, we should prosecute them. If not, we should release them after a reasonable amount of time. I'm a former Soldier and I know how much it would suck to know in your heart that a person you detained, was in fact a terrorist, yet they walk due to a lack of evidence. However, if we don't observe the rule of law, there won't be an America to defend anymore. I'm inclined to believe that quite a few of the people in Guantanamo are guilty. But we also know for a fact that certain groups, such as bounty hunters, were shipping lots of innocent folks off to prison simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We need to start looking for these innocents and set them free in a timely manner. We already have enough blood on our hands.
  • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    There is no established rule of law regarding so-called criminal enemy combatants (as the Am Qaida detainees are classified - Taliban detainees are not thus considered). Insofar as I am aware, the US could execute them en masse perfectly legally. The Taliban detainees have always been provided full legal POW rights. This means that they must he released after hostilities have ended. I may well he misinformed. If so please correct me.
    • phaus 13y ago
      I agree the U.S. could definitely "get away" with killing them all, I'm speaking more about the intent behind the rule of law. In my humble opinion, "after hostilities have ended" is too weak of a standard. I'm still a young man, yet I would be surprised if hostilities ended before I die of natural causes. Perhaps we can argue that we didn't know better before this conflict, but now that we do we should make some changes. I was not aware that the Taliban were given POW rights. That was an extremely poor decision but I guess I stand corrected on that issue. I don't really have a solution, I'm just weary of watching the slowest train-wreck in the history of the world. We should be better than this.
• shotwell 13y ago
  > prisoners of war These men are not prisoners of war. The United States cannot declare them as prisoners of war without gross legal ramifications.
  • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war. Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention. http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/prisoners-of-war/#sthash.IdSm1YOI.dpuf http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/prisoners-of-war/#sthas...
    • bobwaycott 13y ago
      Are you attempting to dispute or corroborate that these prisoners are not, in fact, prisoners of war? You're quoting from the creative legal department of the Bush administration, in which it is made clear that the men are not categorized as prisoners of war, but were instead supplied a different distinction so as to remove them from Geneva Convention protections. Instead, your quote only says they've been allegedly provided POW privileges as a matter of policy. Policy does not equal protection under and adherence to laws of war.
• bobwaycott 13y ago
  > Members of these organizations which are captured are allowed to be held as POWs until hostilities are formally ended. Members of these organizations are are not held as POWs. They are held and classified as unlawful combatants. There has not been (and will not be) any formal end to hostilities like history has known. Instead, we've seen agreements that say occupations are ending and troops are being withdrawn, but nothing that states hostilities are formally ended and peace is obtained like most people expect to be in place. This has a lot to do with not bothering to be in declared states of war any longer, because that opens states up to massive legal consequences and responsibilities that states, particularly the US over the last 50 years, are particularly interested in avoiding. > What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side. Charge them with crimes and provide evidence of their guilt or release them. Many detainees have not been "simply fighting for their country or side", which is why they are not POWs. They have been classified as unlawful combatants, removing their legal protections and dooming them to permanent incarceration. > Try them? You're not really supposed to charge prisoners of war with a crime. I mean I guess that you can, but why? You absolutely are supposed to charge POWs with a crime or immediately repatriate them upon conclusion of hostilities. But, again, these are not POWs. The US has gone to great pains to deny that protection, opting instead for a policy that affords them what we are supposed to accept as POW privileges in place of, you know, the rule of and fidelity to law. And because there are no official peace agreements that will ever be made for a war that was never declared, there is little chance we will ever see these prisoners released at the conclusion of hostilities--because there are no conclusions. There are only ceremonial conclusions accompanied by agreements to withdraw troops--which does not translate into a legal requirement to repatriate Gitmo's captives.
• lmm 13y ago
  If the US acknowledged them as POWs with the associated rights (e.g. correspondence, able to refuse questioning) that would be one thing. But they're not even granted that. (Not to mention that war was never declared, so hostilities have already formally ended - or rather, never formally started)