Preference: Guantanamo Bay or Iraqi POW?

bertiebowl

I'm interested in finding out what the Boards.ie contributors think.

Would you prefer to be an American POW held by the Iraqis or an Afghan POW held by the Americans in Guantanamo Bay??

Victor

I'm not sure, the number of Iraqi POWs seems to be going down, so they are either shooting them or letting them go (or recruiting them) ....

Wook

what's the point of this poll ? what exactly are you looking for ?
I don't think i would like to be a POW at all.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bertiebowl

What's the point of this poll?

To see if you think that the respect for human rights for POWs by the Iraqi regime is better or worse than the American equivalent.

I think its pretty hypocritical of the Americans to be denouncing the Iraqis for breaching the "geneva convention" when the stick people in semi-torture arrangements in Cuba with no respect for their human rights (ok they may be terrorists - but for Gawds' sake give 'em a fair trial)

(ok they may be terrorists - but for Gawds' sake give 'em a fair trial)

well since the US have called this the "War against Terrorism" does that not make them soldiers?

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
well since the US have called this the "War against Terrorism" does that not make them soldiers?

Calling something by a name does not make it so.

What next?
The war on drugs means drug dealers become POWs?
The war against AIDS means the AIDS virus becomes a POW?

Its a catchphrase...not a war. You can't declare war on a methodology, which is what terrorism is. Hell, its hard enough to declare war on an ideology (which is what the US want us to believe terrorism is).

War is declared on a nation, and I wasnt aware there was a nation called "Terroria" out there.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

Personally, I think Guantanamo Bay and Iraqi POW camps aren't exactly my number one holiday destination but I say that by holding prisoners in Cuba, the US prove themselves hypocrites and liars with regard to 'human rights'

DadaKopf

The reasons the US can get away with Guantanamo are partly beause:

1. The Geneva Conventions don't have teeth. The Red Cross can inspect the conditions of wartime prisoners but the price they pay for being invited is confidentiality - they can never publish their report and, sure, who's gonna bother oveying the Conventions?
2. The Geneva Conventions' definitions of combatants and non-combatants are out of date. They can't deal with the complexities of state vs. non-state and internicine conflicts which also fall under the Conventions. To qualify for the Conventions' protections as a fighter, the force must be in possession of a significant, unitary territory, must have a discernible hierarchical structure (including uniformed signs of rank) and, therefore, a control on the means of warfare. The Taliban satisfies most of these protocols except the one of rank, which is more ambivalent and open to interpretation, hence America's ability to circumvent it.
3. The 1977 Protocols don't even have gums. They did a little better at providing definitions for these new forms of war (conditions of territoriality, hierarchy, uniforms etc.), including the Cold War, but did little about it. These protocols could have helped the Taliban fighters but, sure, neither the US nor Afghanistan ratified them.

Much to the dismay of Bush, having to be bound to the 1949 Conventions means he has to take care of them more than he would if bound by the 1977 Protocols. Considering that they must be treated as combatants until their status can be determined, he has to provide the Taliban with musical instruments, if little else. Funny thing is, the Taliban have forbidden music.

Victor

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Considering that they must be treated as combatants until their status can be determined, he has to provide the Taliban with musical instruments,

And 7(?) Swiss Francs per day!

pork99

at least geneva convention applies

If you believe that you will believe anything

Allied POWs were tortured and female prisoners raped in the last Gulf war, why will this one be any different?

Sparks

That applied to both sides
The soldiers on the Basra road that were annihilated (the "highway of death") for example, had been ordered to withdraw. That put Saddam in compliance with UNSC resolution 660, ended the mandate of UNSC resolution 678 and gave those troops explicit protection under article 3 of the Geneva convention. The US forces killed them all anyway.
And don't even bother with Guantanamo Bay - that one breaks 14 seperate articles of the Convention, right off the bat.
See, here's where I get angry - Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam, they're all supposed to be these evil guys (and make no mistake, they are - their removal from our world would be a Good Thing(tm) ) but the US is now indistinguishable from them in terms of their observance of the rule of law - and once that's out the window, there's not really a lot left

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Victor
And 7(?) Swiss Francs per day!

Category I : Prisoners ranking below sergeants: eight Swiss francs.

Category II : Sergeants and other non-commissioned officers, or prisoners of equivalent rank: twelve Swiss francs.

Category III: Warrant officers and commissioned officers below the rank of major or prisoners of equivalent rank: fifty Swiss francs.

Category IV : Majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels or prisoners of equivalent rank: sixty Swiss francs.

Category V : General officers or prisoners of war of equivalent rank: seventy-five Swiss francs.

Calling something by a name does not make it so.

Bonkey, i know what your saying, however there is a difference here. Any other time it would be a low key description. Here they are using it as a catch-phrase for their movements. In fact consider they have invaded two countries as a result of this "war".

The other side of the coin is calling Iraq a terrorist state doesn't make it so.

See, here's where I get angry - Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam, they're all supposed to be these evil guys (and make no mistake, they are - their removal from our world would be a Good Thing(tm) ) but the US is now indistinguishable from them in terms of their observance of the rule of law - and once that's out the window, there's not really a lot left

I agree. Now that they have a taste of breaking the conventions, and knowing they can get away with it, they'll continue to pursue these methods.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Bonkey, i know what your saying, however there is a difference here.

Dont get me wrong. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be classed as soldiers just because the US has declared a war on terrorism.

They should be declared as soldiers for no other reason than they were obviously the organised resistance by the ruling faction of a nation in response to an armed invasion.

I noticed in some German-language local paper the other day that some people had been released from Gitmo (unless I misread it). Only an entire year after they were incarcarated, they were released without charge.

I was amazed how I managed to see this in a local free newspaper that I read on the train each morning, and yet it didnt make a major blip on any radar.

Last time we had a heated discussion about Gitmo, the pro-US advocates were saying that these people were in Guantanamo Bay because the US knew they were terrorists.

While its nice to see people being found innocent and released, it really does call the operation into question.
The US have turned these people "grey". They are outside any legal jurisdiction that I am aware of, and are basically held at the whim of the US military and government who will brook no questions on the subject.

If this is the price of Freedom, I'm not so sure I want the capital F there any more thanks.

The other side of the coin is calling Iraq a terrorist state doesn't make it so.

Couldnt agree more.

jc

Sparks

As I recall, not only were those released not terrorists, but they had been arrested on the information provided by people that later turned out to be Taliban themselves.

Which makes me wonder why the US are now using Iraqi informers to find Ba'ath party members... :rolleyes:

The people in Guantanamo are actually under the jurisdiction of the relevant international law - namely the Geneva Convention. In other words, they're being held illegally and if it wasn't for the large military force the US have, they wouldn't be there. It's a case of "might makes right" as far as Junior is concerned.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
What your talking about Bonkey?

I believe the term I used was "major blip". Sorry, but an online article on any site does not constitute a major blip.

I didnt see any significant debate over the correctness of what the US has done. Even the article you link to seems to imply that the only real issue at stake here is whether or not the men were treated humanely.

Ask yourself this. If the Irish government held people without charge for a year, on the basis that they were obviously guilty in the first place, and then released them without charge.....don't you think the Irish papers - let alone the international ones - would have an absolute field day.

Here - possibly because of the current war, I'll admit - its worth a brief mention at best....and the one you point to is hardly raising any of the questions which should be asked.

OK - I missed that three others had already been released last October, so these weren't the first releases, but seriously......the closest the BBC even came to asserting that this paractice is not really in line with the ideals of the free world is :

"The American policy of secretly detaining suspects without charge in Guantanamo Bay has been criticised by human rights groups."

Riiight. So, we can take it then that Human Rights Groups are the only people who seem to have an issue with secretly detaining suspects without charge.

Thats what I'm talking about.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.