Legal or Illegal
Published on February 12, 2004 By Solitair In Politics
I had heard much defense of the US position on Guantanamo Bay and am very surprised at people's belief that it's legal. Based on Brad's suggestion, I've decied to post a new article where this can be discussed.

The usual arguement made against it is that it breaks the Geneva convention. In particular Article 4 which reads,



As many people point out, this articles does not entitle those held in Guantanamo Bay to POW status as most of them fail to meet all the requirements. What people seem to ignore is that in 1979 there was an additional protocol (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)) added. Under sectino 45 of this protocol is a very important section which I post below.

Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, an such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.


Now let me post article 75, which is the worst case protection an inmate at Guantanamo Bay can expect (assuming they refuse to claim POW status or loose such a legal argument)

Article 75.-Fundamental guarantees
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:

(i) Murder;

(ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

( iii ) Corporal punishment ; and

(iv) Mutilation;

( Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

(c) The taking of hostages;

(d) Collective punishments; and

(e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.

4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:

(a) The procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

( No one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

(c) No one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

(d) Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilt according to law;

(e) Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;

(f) No one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;

(g) Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(h) No one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;

(i) Anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and

(i) A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men's quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases

where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.

6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.

7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply:

(a) Persons who are accused of such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and

( Any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.

8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1.



I eagerly await to hear how anyone can claim Guantanamo Bay is legal when the US is a signatory to the above articles.

Paul.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 13, 2004

Muggaz: That's exactly my point though - at least countries could take a stand. Canada, for instance, is a democracy. If the people in Canada really wanted to put sanctions on the US, they could. But in reality, they don't really feel that strongly on the issue.

I can assure you that if France were doing something that upset the majority of Americans that the government would be forced to do something about it (such as economic sanctions). It is the nature of democracies.  A lot of people try to call the war on terrorism "Bush's war". But that's really not the case. After 9/11 Saddam was doomed. It didn't matter whether he was involved or not.  The majority of Americans wanted him gone and that's that.

That's the thing about democracies - they're not necessarily a "good" thing in all cases. All they can garauntee is that the governments will generally do what the majority of its people want.

on Feb 16, 2004
Saddam should have been doomed in 1991. Pity it took so long for the world to realise the threat and act.

As for G, I agree that the world should be putting political pressure on the US to solve the issue. The problem, with that approach is that it just generates anger among people.

As for the 'who's going to pay for elaborate trials', that's an easy one. Whoever the US wants to. Itself, the original country where the war took place (Afganistan) ot the international community (the UN), can all be asked to hold the trials under the agreement. It's actually the US's choice.

Paul.
on Feb 20, 2004
Hey Muggaz, other than my posts on joeuser.com, what did I as an American do to convince a foreigner to hate me solely on my nationality?

I was born here, I value my country, and stand by it even in troubled times. I guess that's a perfectly good reason to hate my guts, burn my flag, point fingers, and in general try to cause chaos, anarchy, and blow me up with suicide bombers.

When you hate America, what you mean is you hate the Government of America..which, while it is supposed to represent the population, doesn't nessecarily always do so.
If you think Bush is an ignorant cowboy..that's fine, but how did I have anything to do for that?


2 Pages1 2