h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why is the US being so careful in not calling them "prisoners of war"? Surely there is nothing in the Geneva Convention that the US is trying to get around.

On the news just now it said that they may be tried under "American military law" - what does that mean?

Especially since they love the phrase War On Terrorism. I suspect that what they want to get round about it the name, rank and number thing. But since they are not part of a military in the normal sense, I don't see they should necessarily be treated as such. I guess they will also soon be using "active interrogation" on them.

See also "Unlawful Combatants" conversation.

And never mind what the Taleban are doing in Cuba - what are the US doing there?!?

I smell a rat....

From my reading on the subject, a couple of points stand out.
#1 If the prisoners land on U.S soil they will be entitled to the full benefits of the U.S justice system. This would mean Judge, Jury and Defence council in an open court.
#2 Whilst in the custody of the Military out side the U.S they can be dealt with by Military tribunal under the U.S military uniform code of justice.
The U.S is too scared of what may come out in an open court, to allow that to happen. They are also scared of reprisals in the form of attacks on said court.
The U.S military can try the cases behind closed doors in front of a tribunal, sentence and execute with little or no international oversite.

There's no international oversight of what goes on in our civilian courts. We're a sovereign nation.

These people have a right to a fair tribunal to determine their status. If they are found to have committed hostile acts without being lawful combatants they're subject to execution or imprisonment.

We're not making this stuff up to suit our own ends. Our actions in this matter are governed by the treaty. This is the way these sorts of things have been handled throughout the last century. The proper place to try war crimes is a military tribunal. I doubt that we could try many of these people under our civilian law, because they didn't commit civilian crimes, they committed war crimes.

I don't really understand what the problem is with Guantanmo Bay. We've been there for nearly a century. I don't see any reason we should have surrendered it just because the government on the island changed.

Cuba is a sovereign country. In common with the wishes of citizens in all sovereign countries, the Cuban people want the American overstayers/invaders/occupying power to pack up and go back where they came from.

Most peace-loving people would see such a noble aim as democracy in action. Alas, the military, civilian hawks and various other self-interested American cabals are not renowned for their peace-loving ways.

As for the military tribunals. The old adage "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done" is only ignored by fools.

I don't know what the legal relationship allowed us to have a base there. If it was legitmate under the prior government, I don't see any reason to change it because the communists took over.

The Cubans are hardly ones to present a claim about either democracy or justice. The communists nationalized (read stole) a great deal of property when they assumed power, and have never reimbursed the owners.

I think we should keep it as long as we have a legal right to it and it serves our purposes. If we possess it under lease or something like that, then we should surrender it gracefully at that time.

I just did a little browsing on the subject. I guess I should tone it down a little bit. Castro has said that he supports our goal, if not our means. He's offered to provide some humanitarian assistance to the detainees. Which is nice. Even a communist can be tolerable sometimes.

Apparantly we have a prepetual lease of Guantanamo Bay. It's ours as long as we need it.

Perpetual lease granted by who?

An earlier government of Cuba. I think the current arrangment was establsihed in 1934.

My research gives the same dates. Is Guantanamo Bay US territory (a colony)?

I've often wondered why the US was so scared by the Soviet missiles on Cuba when Castro couldn't even get rid of a US base on his own chunk of land.

And why did Kennedy let the Bay of Pigs fiasco go ahead when he had his own bridgehead?

It's a leased base. It's in the territory of Cuba, and the Navy and Cuba have concurrent jurisdiction over the area, much like military reservations in this country.

I suspect those other scenarios didn't play out because of the legal status of the base. In both cases, they were skirting the issue of war.

Leased, so Cuban territory.

So back to the first question - what is the legal status of internment camps in which al-Qaeda suspects are to be held and perhaps tried and perhaps executed?

I don't like these people (assuming they are who your government says they are), but there was this idea that they were attacking democracy and the rule of law, which had to be protected. There doesn't seem to be much rule of law here.

Cuban missile crisis - the US acted all weak, but they (you) had the satellites to see what was happening and a base from which they could have stopped it.

Bay of pigs - CIA cockup, but why did they let the Cuban insurgents foul up?

As the base is on Cuban soil, the prisoners will not be subject to US law - so the US can just make up the rules with these guys.

The naval base agreement was writen into the republic constitution with the Platt Amendment, the US forcing the hand of the Cubans, a stop off enroute to Panama in exchange for peace. The deal can only be recinded by mutual agreement. US removal was Castro's asking price for the removal of Soviet missiles. Shame no-one was asking him.

<>
And who owned that property origonally? Were the US corporations going to remburse those who they stole it from in the first place? No. So they rose up and took it back.

>>So they rose up and took it back<<
Who rose up? The original pre-columbian owners? The Tainos, Arawaks or the Caribs?
These people Occupied the island of Cuba from 500BC till 1500AD when the Spanish arrived.
How far back do you want to take this ownership of the land?
Rod

As I understand it the Cuban position on the "stolen land" is that compensation was offered on the basis of the declared taxable value of the property. The owners however wanted compensation far in excess of declared value. Last I heard (not many years ago) was that the compensation offer still stood.

Two bit, re your Post #6 Which treaty is this and with whom?

Beth

The treaties that make up the Laws of Warfare.

Look folks, the rule of law is being upheld. We're complying with what the Law of Warfare requires. The Law of War doesn't require that detaniees be tranported to the homeland of a high contracting power for a civilian trial. It requires a tribunal, either an international tribunal or a court-martial. I'm sure that's what they'll get.

Law of Warfare requires that the status of prisoner, ie whether they are PoW's, Unlawful Combatants or Civilians, be decided by a neutral party.

As the accused al-Qaeda fighter, David Hicks spent his first day in an exposed cage-like cell in a United States military prison on Cuba, the Australian Government continued to stonewall over the treatment of one of its citizens.

The Australian has not been charged with any offence, his legal status is unclear, and his treatment is so harsh that Amnesty International describes it as inhumane.

At the time of this posting, 14/01/02, The Australian Goverment still refuses to comment.