Stomach turning
I concur:
“Perpetuity”. What a horrible word to be used by our government.
This Gitmo thing really disturbs me. I tend to think that if you’re going to hold someone that they should be accused of a crime or, since it’s a war, a war crime. Frankly, the Republican party leadership in this regard frightens me.
June 17th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
When it comes to battlefield detainees – illegal combatants who were caught trying to kill U.S. soldiers – I agree they have to be kept in prison until we decide the war is over. Some of those guys who have been released have gone right back to killing U.S. soldiers. Gitmo is one place we don’t need revolving doors.
As far as Patriot Act-type provisions being used outside the scope of honest-to-goodness terror investigations, I agree that’s a problem, but have any of the people caught in those situations been sent to Gitmo? I think that’s a straw man.
June 17th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Yeah, but the perpetuity to a war that, by its nature, is hard to define as having an end is still troubling.
Besides, are there not tribunals for war crimes and such?
June 17th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
We’re at war.
Trust your government to do the right thing.
June 17th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
“Besides, are there not tribunals for war crimes and such?”
Since they’re illegal combatants they can be executed under international rules. Is that what you’d prefer?
June 17th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Depends. Obviously executing people is not desired but I would assume said execution would follow a trial?
And which rules allow said execution?
June 17th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Oh come on! Get your Club Gitmo t-shirt from rushlimbaugh.com and quit bashing America!
June 17th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
I believe the rules defining an illegal combatant and the treatment thereof are found in the Geneva conventions. It was generally meant to apply to military personnel presentand participating on the battlefield not in the recognized uniform of their army. This would apply to troops either in civilian clothes or in the uniform of another army (one that they’re fighting against). Personal is this status are liable to summary execution. The infamous photo from the Vietnam War of an ARVN general shooting a semming civilian in the head is a case of this-the man being shot was an NVA officer.
Given that our current enemies generally don’t represent a traditional nation-state, the issue gets a bit less clear. But even if you take the most generous view, and treat them as captured enemy soldiers, the Geneva convention allows them to be held for the duration of hostilities.
June 19th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
A “prisoner of war” and a “war criminal” are entirely distinct concepts. Prisoners of war are not, generally, criminals. But they can still be detained – otherwise they wouldn’t be prisioners. No charges or trials are needed to detain them if there is a war on. They may, in specific cases, also be criminals, in which case charges and punishments might be appropriate.
The Geneva and Hague treaties are online and anybody with a high threshold for boredom can read them.