Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7903005.stm

'No US rights' for Bagram inmates
Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.

The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.

Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.

The move has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.

Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice department's decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and "enormously disappointing".

The BBC's Kevin Connolly in Washington says the move has angered human rights lawyers, with one saying the new White House was endorsing the view of the old one, that prisons could be created and run outside the law.

It is certainly evidence that having set the tone for his administration by announcing plans to close Guantanamo Bay, Mr Obama intends to adopt a much more cautious approach to the problem of detainees held elsewhere by the US military, our correspondent says.

'Homicides admitted'

Last year, the US Supreme Court gave suspects held at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention.

Following that ruling, petitions were filed at a Washington district court on behalf of four detainees at Bagram.


The judge then gave the new administration an opportunity to refine the rules on appeals.

In a two-sentence filing, justice department lawyers said the new administration had decided not to change the government's position.

"Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position," said acting assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz in papers filed at the court.

The US justice department argues that Bagram differs from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and prisoners there are being held as part of ongoing military action.

Prof Olshansky said the conditions at the Bagram facility, which is near the Afghan capital, Kabul, were worse than those at Guantanamo Bay, adding that there was a lack of due process available to detainees.
"The situation in Bagram is so far from anything like meeting the laws of war or the human rights treaties that we're bound to," she told the BBC.
"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence," she added. "Torture has led to homicides there that have been admitted by the US."

"It's quite a severe situation, and yet the US is planning a $60m new prison to hold 1,100 more people there."
The US military considers Bagram detainees unlawful combatants who can be detained for as long as they are deemed a threat to Afghan national security.
Awesome, having already tortured people to death there the US is ready to make all its mistakes all over again.
And what is the Afghan occupation achieving exactly?
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Has an objective international organization done an independent assessment of conditions, or are we now accepting defense counsel's "assessment" of conditions as unbiased and accurate? Did yoiu really expect defense counsel to argue that it's all puppies, flowers, and sunshine there or something?

BTW, nothing posted appears to contradict requirements under the Geneva Convention.

Oh, and those knuckleheads that fucked up at Bagram before have been charged and tried in the US, I believe. One instance--which was duly investigated and punished--does not a systemic problem make.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX
"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence,"
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence,"
"That isn't required under the Geneva Convention"

See how these detainees are categorized, then see what is required under the GC. There are no "military hearings where the detainees can present evidence" required if they are being held as either EPWs or enemy combatants.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6814|Gold Coast
Reminds me of that trick that the CIA or whatever uses. Forgot what the name or what its called specifically, but they take some dude away in a plane into a country that has no idea that they (the US) are torturing some prisoner in there. Heard its been done, but I remember it specifically from a book, forgot the name of that too.

Anyway, back on topic, meh. I guess their logic of having 10 or maybe 20 innocent inmates without proof or trial is better than taking a prisoner with no proof who is actually guilty of terrorist activities or whatnot, and letting them go.
I think thats in the book too. :S
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX
See how these detainees are categorized, then see what is required under the GC. There are no "military hearings where the detainees can present evidence" required if they are being held as either EPWs or enemy combatants.
Did you even read the OP?
"The US military considers Bagram detainees unlawful combatants " same as those at Guantanamo.

Anyway, looks like the US is just building a whole new pile of problems for themselves.
Fuck Israel
mcjagdflieger
Champion of Dueling Rectums
+26|6614|South Jersey
lol at dilbert thinking people give a shit about this crap. Yes, a whole slew of new problems. our fuckhead gov. will do whatever it wants whenever it wants, no matter what you nor i say. When will you people realize that obama will not save the world, hes just another politician. A shame to see yet another horrifically corrupted president take office.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence,"
"That isn't required under the Geneva Convention"

See how these detainees are categorized, then see what is required under the GC. There are no "military hearings where the detainees can present evidence" required if they are being held as either EPWs or enemy combatants.
That depends. Trials are not required to continue holding the prisoners. But they are for a lot of other stuff.

A lot of this depends on who "the power on which the prisoners depend" is. Because as soon as active hostilities come to an end, the prisoners of war must be promptly returned to the power on which they depend.

They may be held beyond the end of hostilities if charged with a criminal offence, but must be tried as though they were a member of the detaining powers armed forces.
mikkel
Member
+383|6904

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence,"
"That isn't required under the Geneva Convention"

See how these detainees are categorized, then see what is required under the GC. There are no "military hearings where the detainees can present evidence" required if they are being held as either EPWs or enemy combatants.
A lot of this depends on who "the power on which the prisoners depend" is. Because as soon as active hostilities come to an end, the prisoners of war must be promptly returned to the power on which they depend.
Active hostilities between who? The "war on terrorism" is a war on abstracts. It'll never end.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

mikkel wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:


"That isn't required under the Geneva Convention"

See how these detainees are categorized, then see what is required under the GC. There are no "military hearings where the detainees can present evidence" required if they are being held as either EPWs or enemy combatants.
A lot of this depends on who "the power on which the prisoners depend" is. Because as soon as active hostilities come to an end, the prisoners of war must be promptly returned to the power on which they depend.
Active hostilities between who? The "war on terrorism" is a war on abstracts. It'll never end.
Nope. Terrorism doesn't count. You can't have a war on terrorism. It is the power on which they depend. It is likely this will be the Taliban in many instances and there are still active hostilities underway with them.

No one else calls it a war on terrorism anymore. Everyone was just humouring America in the wake of 9/11. It is not recognised as being a war. It's just a catchphrase. A catchphrase no one else uses because it is considered misleading and counter-productive.
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7071

KuSTaV wrote:

Reminds me of that trick that the CIA or whatever uses. Forgot what the name or what its called specifically, but they take some dude away in a plane into a country that has no idea that they (the US) are torturing some prisoner in there. Heard its been done, but I remember it specifically from a book, forgot the name of that too.
Rendition. US took people to Egypt where torture is "legal".
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence,"
"That isn't required under the Geneva Convention"
thread over.

next
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

are some of you really that fucking stupid?  or are you just "internet outraged?"  you are fighting a war.  you have two choices.  kill them all, or take them prisoner.  you have to put them somewhere no?  i mean when the russians were there, neither side had too many prisoners because they all just slaughtered each other.  we could do that if you like.  but, then again if we did some more "internet outrage" threads would pop up.

get fucking real.  its within the rules.  deal with it.  go back to playing WoW if you cannot handle the real world realities.
mikkel
Member
+383|6904

usmarine wrote:

are some of you really that fucking stupid?  or are you just "internet outraged?"  you are fighting a war.  you have two choices.  kill them all, or take them prisoner.  you have to put them somewhere no?  i mean when the russians were there, neither side had too many prisoners because they all just slaughtered each other.  we could do that if you like.  but, then again if we did some more "internet outrage" threads would pop up.

get fucking real.  its within the rules.  deal with it.  go back to playing WoW if you cannot handle the real world realities.
If you cannot handle real world sentiments about situations that some people feel shouldn't exist, then I suggest you go back to posting angrily on Internet message boards to compensate for the fact that the world is changing, and that your mentality can't keep up. Oh wait.

Stupidity is doing things the way they've been done for centuries and expecting a positive outcome, yet you seem to advocate it. It's so easy for you to tell people how the "real world" is in this context, because it is what it is because of policies that you support. Apparently it isn't easy for you to tolerate people saying how they think it shouldn't be.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-21 06:38:45)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

its within the international rules.  do you not get that?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

usmarine wrote:

are some of you really that fucking stupid?  or are you just "internet outraged?"  you are fighting a war.  you have two choices.  kill them all, or take them prisoner.  you have to put them somewhere no?  i mean when the russians were there, neither side had too many prisoners because they all just slaughtered each other.  we could do that if you like.  but, then again if we did some more "internet outrage" threads would pop up.

get fucking real.  its within the rules.  deal with it.  go back to playing WoW if you cannot handle the real world realities.
Yup. That's fair enough.

When the war is finished though (against real people, not ideas (ie war on terror doesn't count, war on Taliban does count) - since that is how conflict is defined under all the legal framework supporting all this), you have to charge them and try them in a court with proper rights, or release them.

usmarine wrote:

its within the international rules.  do you not get that?
I do. All looks above board. Provided they are treated in accordance with the GC and released when the war is over/given proper criminal trials, it all seems fine.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-21 06:49:45)

mikkel
Member
+383|6904

usmarine wrote:

its within the international rules.  do you not get that?
Which part of my post would suggest that I don't? Are you trying to tell me that people can't complain about things that are within "the rules"? Sounds like something a docile little sheep would say. A hypocritical one in this case.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-21 07:27:46)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

BN wrote:

KuSTaV wrote:

Reminds me of that trick that the CIA or whatever uses. Forgot what the name or what its called specifically, but they take some dude away in a plane into a country that has no idea that they (the US) are torturing some prisoner in there. Heard its been done, but I remember it specifically from a book, forgot the name of that too.
Rendition. US took people to Egypt where torture is "legal".
Don't forget Uzbekistan.  That's where most of it actually took place.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6526|Escea

usmarine wrote:

its within the international rules.  do you not get that?
Yeah but its America doing it, so that doesn't count, you know how it goes

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-02-21 08:36:14)

Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6053|شمال

Turquoise wrote:

BN wrote:

KuSTaV wrote:

Reminds me of that trick that the CIA or whatever uses. Forgot what the name or what its called specifically, but they take some dude away in a plane into a country that has no idea that they (the US) are torturing some prisoner in there. Heard its been done, but I remember it specifically from a book, forgot the name of that too.
Rendition. US took people to Egypt where torture is "legal".
Don't forget Uzbekistan.  That's where most of it actually took place.
Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
US LOVE these countries... they like little homiZ to US

fuck, i forgot saudi... how can i forget saudi.

Last edited by Beduin (2009-02-21 08:29:15)

الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Beduin wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

BN wrote:


Rendition. US took people to Egypt where torture is "legal".
Don't forget Uzbekistan.  That's where most of it actually took place.
Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
US LOVE these countries... they like little homiZ to US

fuck, i forgot saudi... how can i forget saudi.
Well, admittedly, Muslims tend to know more about torture than us.  j/k
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence,"
"That isn't required under the Geneva Convention"

See how these detainees are categorized, then see what is required under the GC. There are no "military hearings where the detainees can present evidence" required if they are being held as either EPWs or enemy combatants.
That depends. Trials are not required to continue holding the prisoners. But they are for a lot of other stuff.

A lot of this depends on who "the power on which the prisoners depend" is. Because as soon as active hostilities come to an end, the prisoners of war must be promptly returned to the power on which they depend.

They may be held beyond the end of hostilities if charged with a criminal offence, but must be tried as though they were a member of the detaining powers armed forces.
Last I checked, there were still active hostilities in Afghanistan. The people being held participated in those hostilities. So...since hostilities haven't ended, there is no requirement for criminal charges under the GC.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

See how these detainees are categorized, then see what is required under the GC. There are no "military hearings where the detainees can present evidence" required if they are being held as either EPWs or enemy combatants.
Did you even read the OP?
"The US military considers Bagram detainees unlawful combatants " same as those at Guantanamo.
Yes, I read the OP. Perhaps you should have included the last bit in that sentence:

your own copy/paste wrote:

who can be detained for as long as they are deemed a threat to Afghan national security
Sounds an awful lot like Afghan law may apply to these jokers, based on that little tidbit.

So, they are considered unlawful combatants...even by the Obama Administration. Hmmm...either Obama is just as stupid and controlled by Dick Cheney as Bush...or maybe...just MAYBE...they might have an actual, real foundation for the legal argument regarding that classification. Two different men and administrations, diametrically opposed on the issue, come to the same conclusion.

Nope. Just ignore that. Too inconvenient for your "America is teh evilz" argument.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyway, looks like the US is just building a whole new pile of problems for themselves.
If we were handing out candy to children, you'd bitch about the US making kids fat. Rings a bit hollow coming from someone as zealously anti-US as you.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6053|شمال

Turquoise wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Don't forget Uzbekistan.  That's where most of it actually took place.
Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
US LOVE these countries... they like little homiZ to US

fuck, i forgot saudi... how can i forget saudi.
Well, admittedly, sons of bitches tend to know more about torture than us.  j/k
fixed

+ all those countries are separating faith from politics...
except saudi,  saudi is a heavyweight
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

its within the international rules.  do you not get that?
Which part of my post would suggest that I don't? Are you trying to tell me that people can't complain about things that are within "the rules"? Sounds like something a docile little sheep would say. A hypocritical one in this case.
go complain to geneva then.......we are following the rules set forth.  you are just crying for the purpose of crying.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard