BF2S Forums holy fuck terrorists running free.

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

its funny that everyone wants to close it, but yet when we capture an Al-Q............where would they go?  that's right.  nobody can agree on that.  a case on "nimby" usually sets in when it comes to real solutions.

A simple high security prison will do.  No torture should start unless the subject is found guilty in a court of law and information is needed to apprehend others.

Kmarion wrote:

You have no real legal justification for you argument. I'm going back there (flag) in hopes of stimulating your mind. Our constitution protects the rights of US citizens. There is a treaty between signatories that protects the rights of enemy combatants. The prisoners at gitmo fall under neither.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-10 16:34:03)

Kmarion wrote:

We are at war with Iran?

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-10 16:44:31)

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

We are at war with Iran?

No. But you have no formal diplomatic relations with them.

Iran would be classed as a neutral state with no diplomatic relations.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Beyond that no.

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-10 16:50:57)

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

We are at war with Iran?

No. But you have no formal diplomatic relations with them.

Iran would be classed as a neutral state with no diplomatic relations.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

They are nationals of a neutral state - BUT Iran do not have normal diplomatic representation in the US. Therefore they do not meet the criteria for being excluded from protected civilian status.

They aren't covered in the first place.

Kmarion wrote:

Why are they?

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-10 16:56:37)

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Why are they?

Because of this:

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

If they are not covered under the 3rd convention, which you quoted, they are covered under the 4th (or 1st, but that's not relevant to this discussion, because they're most certainly not covered by that). Therefore, unless they meet the criteria for exclusion as a protected civilian, they are covered.

I did explain all this in the initial post.

Status = enemy combatant.. may be held till the end of hostilities. No?

After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

How else would you two describe a prison where a trial is not an option and where one is kept without any charges pressed against him?

I call that a concentration camp. How naive am I.

Extremely.

How many POWs are tried or charged? None.

These people are being held as unlawful combatants, and are being treated better than they have to be treated under the GC. In fact, according to Part I, Article II, the US isn't even bound to follow the strictures of the Convention because the non-signatory (those would be the terrorists) did not follow the strictures of the Convention.

Part I, Article II, Third Geneva Convention wrote:

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.

How ya like them apples?

FEOS wrote:

More of you people need to actually read the damn thing before spouting off. Read the whole thing, not just the parts you like.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-10 17:16:55)

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Because of this:

If they are not covered under the 3rd convention, which you quoted, they are covered under the 4th (or 1st, but that's not relevant to this discussion, because they're most certainly not covered by that). Therefore, unless they meet the criteria for exclusion as a protected civilian, they are covered.

I did explain all this in the initial post.

Status = enemy combatant.. may be held till the end of hostilities. No?

No.

After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial

So those who meet the criteria for being protected under the 4th convention, are - despite unlawful combatant status. Looking at the criteria for being protected under the 4th convention, those from Iran are covered because of the lack of diplomatic representation.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Status = enemy combatant.. may be held till the end of hostilities. No?

No.

After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial

So those who meet the criteria for being protected under the 4th convention, are - despite unlawful combatant status. Looking at the criteria for being protected under the 4th convention, those from Iran are covered because of the lack of diplomatic representation.

Right, may choose. They have not been reclassified. There is no urgency to reclassify them as POW. It does not matter what type of diplomatic relation you have with them. They are held indefinitely.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-10 17:27:56)

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Right, may choose. They have not been reclassified. There is no urgency to reclassify them as POW. It does not matter what type of diplomatic relation you have with them. They are held indefinitely.

No. That's not what it says. Read it again.

1) They may choose to give them POW status (under the 3rd convention), but don't have to.
2) If they meet the criteria for protected civilian status under the 4th convention they are covered by it.

It is up to the detaining power to choose whether to hold them as POWs or to apply the 4th convention (which most are not protected by).

You missed my point again. They are not given POW status. So under the presumed protection of the the fourth they are given the rights of a trial. But when?

4th Geneva Convention, Article 71 wrote:

Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-10 17:38:28)