[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Neither. They’re unlawful enemy combatants and should never have been traded for a US POW. It’s a first in US history.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Are combatants captured in a theater of war tried in civilian courts?
Nope. A question settled by the USSC 70 years ago
Arguable that they are POWs, but Bergdahl isn’t a POW either
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Are combatants captured in a theater of war tried in civilian courts?
Nope. A question settled by the USSC 70 years ago
Arguable that they are POWs, but Bergdahl isn’t a POW either[/quote]
What makes you say Bergdahl wasn’t a POW?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Neither. They’re unlawful enemy combatants and should never have been traded for a US POW. It’s a first in US history.[/quote]
“Unlawful enemy combatant” is another word for civilian criminal. Were criminal charges pending? Was a trial scheduled?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Neither. They’re unlawful enemy combatants and should never have been traded for a US POW. It’s a first in US history.[/quote]
“Unlawful enemy combatant” is another word for civilian criminal. Were criminal charges pending? Was a trial scheduled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant[/quote]
From your citation:
The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.[6]
Was the Taliban recognized as a state and a signatory to the Geneva Conventions?
Arguable or no
Next then US has laws addressing their status
Clearly Mr Holder,in his 5 miserable years, has chosen not to proceed with civil criminal cases
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Notice, too, the connections between the Taliban command and Iran and HAMAS, connections not revealed in the mainstream press
[/quote]
I did notice that. Interesting.
Okay, I’ll bite. Why wasn’t Bergdahl really a prisoner of war?
Because he wasn’t really a prisoner, or because it wasn’t really a war?
EDIT: Just saw your previous post. That’s what I thought you were implying.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Neither. They’re unlawful enemy combatants and should never have been traded for a US POW. It’s a first in US history.[/quote]
“Unlawful enemy combatant” is another word for civilian criminal. Were criminal charges pending? Was a trial scheduled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant[/quote]
They don’t need to be criminally charged. They only require assessment by a tribunal as unlawful enemy combatants.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Notice, too, the connections between the Taliban command and Iran and HAMAS, connections not revealed in the mainstream press
[/quote]
I did notice that. Interesting.
Okay, I’ll bite. Why wasn’t Bergdahl really a prisoner of war?
Because he wasn’t really a prisoner, or because it wasn’t really a war?[/quote]
Because he wasn’t a uniformed soldier of a nation state. This is not controversial stuff. It’s codified in the Geneva Convention.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Neither. They’re unlawful enemy combatants and should never have been traded for a US POW. It’s a first in US history.[/quote]
“Unlawful enemy combatant” is another word for civilian criminal. Were criminal charges pending? Was a trial scheduled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant[/quote]
They don’t need to be criminally charged. They only require assessment by a tribunal as unlawful enemy combatants.
[/quote]
So, after that assessment, your position is that they can be detained without formal charges or a trial–criminal, civilian, military, administrative, any trial–forever?
It looks like these “high value targets” have beed detained without formal charges pending for over a decade.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Neither. They’re unlawful enemy combatants and should never have been traded for a US POW. It’s a first in US history.[/quote]
“Unlawful enemy combatant” is another word for civilian criminal. Were criminal charges pending? Was a trial scheduled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant[/quote]
They don’t need to be criminally charged. They only require assessment by a tribunal as unlawful enemy combatants.
[/quote]
So, after that assessment, your position is that they can be detained without formal charges or a trial–criminal, civilian, military, administrative, any trial–forever?
[/quote]
Until the end of hostilities. And it’s not my position. It’s the position of the drafters and signatures of the Geneva Convention. As I said, it’s not controversial stuff.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, I’ll bite. Why wasn’t Bergdahl really a prisoner of war?
Because he wasn’t really a prisoner, or because it wasn’t really a war?[/quote]
Because he wasn’t a uniformed soldier of a nation state. This is not controversial stuff. It’s codified in the Geneva Convention.[/quote]
Bergdahl wasn’t a uniformed soldier of a nation state? I knew he left his helmet and his body armour in his tent, but I didn’t realise he’d run off without his uniform as well.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, I’ll bite. Why wasn’t Bergdahl really a prisoner of war?
Because he wasn’t really a prisoner, or because it wasn’t really a war?[/quote]
Because he wasn’t a uniformed soldier of a nation state. This is not controversial stuff. It’s codified in the Geneva Convention.[/quote]
Bergdahl wasn’t a uniformed soldier of a nation state? I knew he left his helmet and his body armour in his tent, but I didn’t realise he’d run off without his uniform as well. [/quote]
Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking about the Taliban prisoners. Bergdahl was a prisoner of war as far as I understand.
And anyway,
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What makes you say Bergdahl wasn’t a POW?[/quote]
I was just asking the same question you asked.
EDIT: ah, I see. No worries.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
It looks like these “high value targets” have beed detained without formal charges pending for over a decade.
http://www.hrw.org/features/guantanamo-facts-figures[/quote]
A position piece
Have these 5 been denied counsel? Or the rights of the PoW even if their status is in doubt?
If they have not been tried by a military tribunal or a criminal court, perhaps Mr Obama or Mr Holder should be made aware of this shocking allegation.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway,
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What makes you say Bergdahl wasn’t a POW?[/quote]
I was just asking the same question you asked.[/quote]
Yeah I know. I misunderstood you. See above.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway,
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What makes you say Bergdahl wasn’t a POW?[/quote]
I was just asking the same question you asked.
EDIT: ah, I see. No worries.[/quote]
Is someone who deserts his post, removes his uniform (and mails it back to Idaho) and is captured by an enemy with no uniform and no nation state…is he a POW?
I don’t know; but he would be treated as such by a GC signatory.
I think the proper term would be " hostage" or worse, willing hostage.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
It looks like these “high value targets” have beed detained without formal charges pending for over a decade.
http://www.hrw.org/features/guantanamo-facts-figures[/quote]
A position piece
Have these 5 been denied counsel? Or the rights of the PoW even if their status is in doubt?
If they have not been tried by a military tribunal or a criminal court, perhaps Mr Obama or Mr Holder should be made aware of this shocking allegation.[/quote]
If these are bad guys they need to be tried and charged somewhere or let go. You can’t just hold people forever. It looks to me like the actual 9/11 hijackers have been treated better than the remaining 140 or so guys. At least they have charges pending or have had a trial. And I’d agree that Obama and Holder are committing Human Rights Violations by detaining people indefinitely without charging or trying them.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway,
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What makes you say Bergdahl wasn’t a POW?[/quote]
I was just asking the same question you asked.
EDIT: ah, I see. No worries.[/quote]
Is someone who deserts his post, removes his uniform (and mails it back to Idaho) and is captured by an enemy with no uniform and no nation state…is he a POW?
I don’t know; but he would be treated as such by a GC signatory.
I think the proper term would be " hostage" or worse, willing hostage.
[/quote]
So Gilad Shalit was a hostage, not a POW.
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.