BF2S Forums Guantanamo 2: Bagram

FEOS 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.

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.

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying for the past few posts?

Isn't that what "Trials are not required to continue holding the prisoners" means?

After hosilities end, there must be trials/repatriation - and any charges brought against detainees whilst hosilities are ongoing must offer them the same rights as members of the detaining powers armed forces.

Just clarifying, since your post seemed a little open (not inaccurate though), it seemed  you could have been suggesting that they weren't entitled to trials. I was just clearing up the point that, whilst trials are not required for their continued detention currently, they are required for any charges leveled at them or when hostilities end.

Beduin wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Beduin wrote:

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

Uh...  I think you'll find that having a secular government is a good thing in general.

Harmor wrote:

I don't believe the Taliban signed the GC.

So the question is if you're fighting a country/organization that did not sign the GC are you required to follow the GC?  Andy International Law lawyers out there answer that one?

Yeah you are i think. When a country signed the GC, its to say, I will follow these rules, period. Its not to say, i will follow these rules if my enemy follows these rules.

Also if "we" don't have the moral high ground, "we" have already lost.

Flecco wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I don't believe the Taliban signed the GC.

So the question is if you're fighting a country/organization that did not sign the GC are you required to follow the GC?  Andy International Law lawyers out there answer that one?

Yeah you are i think. When a country signed the GC, its to say, I will follow these rules, period. Its not to say, i will follow these rules if my enemy follows these rules.

Hmm...

Didn't seem that way in WW2. Who's going to punish you if you don't follow it? /devilsadvocate

Actually, a signatory to the GC is only required to follow the strictures of the Conventions until the other side violates some tenet of the Convention. At that point, the signatory party(ies) is no longer bound by the GC.

Common Article 2

Article 2 specifies which parties are bound, and under what circumstances.

    * That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered;
    * That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
    * That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why stop following the GC if there is no particular need to, whatever your enemy is doing?

Ask the people who wrote it.

My guess is that choosing to follow the GC limits one's options in dealing with an adversary. If both sides agree to the same limitations, it's not an issue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

One instance--which was duly investigated and punished--does not a systemic problem make.

Its a lot more than one instance, it is systemic.

AFAIK, there has been one proven incident...which was punished. There have been many allegations, but only one has proven out.

Once again, allegations are not facts. Accusations do not convict...facts do.