Hi LPH:
"Amazing, It's hardly about winning something."
I did not want to get into a debate about this aspect of a technicality, because that is all I see right now. It seems like a lot of fuss is being made over something that is not at this time harming the Detainees.
"The whole point of the discussion is whether the trial procedures recommended by Bush and being considered are fair or not. Seeker's point was to point out that the precedents cited by the Bush administration are shaky."
I am aware of Seeker's point. If we are concerned over fairness, the Bush Admin decision to try John Walker in US Civilian courts is at least suggestive that they are seeking fairness. Technically, when US Citizens travel abroad, they are barred from joining foreign armies and other acts deemed treasonous ... and if they do, they automatically forfiet their US Citizenship. Therefore, John Walker is no longer a US Citizen and could be tried tried as a Taliban or Al Quaeda. But, by allowing him to face a US civilian court, he is being treated very fairly ... and so, I tend to think that the Bush Admin will try to be fair to others.
"You stated, in an attempt to mollify the implications of Seeker's points, that the prisoners (for they are that) - who you called POWs - would be treated according to the Geneva Convention, when in fact they are not being accorded those rights. That is exactly why the US won't call them POWs because it doesn't want to accept the requirements of that convention."
What rights under the GC are being denied to the Detainees? The USMCJ is used for our own soldiers ... and is a fair system ... so how does this deny some rights under the GC? How are the Detainees being harmed?
"How can this not be germane to the argument - or your core points - is beyond me since that was one of your core points.
My core point is:
1. US Military Code of Justice (USMCJ) standards are very fair, and has a long standing tradition in the trial of US military personnel. The tribunals that Bush wants set up would be run along the lines of the USMCJ. ... 5. The Taliban and Al Quaeda people are not US Citizens and have no rights under US Civilian laws. They are prisoners of war [edit: Detainees], and there is plenty of case law on how war criminals are treated. At best, any USA trial must meet any provisions of the Geneva Convention that may apply. By using Military Tribunal the Taliban and Al Quaeda defendants are afforded fairness, certainly much better than they afforded to the women they shot in the back of the head for wearing cosmetics.
"These individuals - rightly or wrongly - are detainees precisely because the US does not want to label them POWs under the Geneva Convention. Sure, people may want to put a spin on it by saying "they are being treated according to the GC" but the fact is that they aren't and it is not a technicality."
What specific rights are being denied them? How are they being treated in a way that violates the geneva Convention?
"Under the GC they need not answer questions beyond name, rank and serial number, for example. Also, there exists argument as to how well they are being treated - at least outside the US press.
Yes, I understand that the GC calls for name, rank, and serial number. Again, how are these "Detainees" not being treated fairly? Again, what specifically has been done to them that violates the GC? We just don't know. And as far as the Bush Admin goes, we don't know exactly why they have not been classified technically as POWs. The Bush Admin would be foolhardy to engage in unfairness, torture, or other things prohibited by the GC ... even though they are not called POWs. We will just have to wait and see ... but with the whole world watching ... it would be tough for the Pres. to do something unfair or harmful to the Detainees.
"Now it's a separate argument as to whether them being detainees is right or wrong, practical or impractical, etc - but to blur the issue by making statements that are untrue and misleading - and which also are biased against Seeker's points - is a little less then satisfactory."
What did I say that was untrue or biased? I made a technical error in loosely calling them POWs. I still stated in item 5 that whatever we call these Detainees, we would have to act accoridng to the provisions of the GC. No intent was expressed or implied to mislead ... and I accepted your correction, and conceded the point that they should be technically called Detainees.
What I meant by Germane to the point, is that I don't want to debate whether they are called POWs or Detainees. Such titles are an exercise in semantics.
Call them what you like, as long as they are being treated fairly, not being tortured, and they receive humane treatment such as regular and good meals, necessary medical care, adequate sleep, and access to any services required of the GC, then what difference does it make that they are Detainees or POWs until the US Admin figures out what to do?
Now, if the Bush Admin comes out with some legal manuvering, so they can deny basic human rights ... and enages in torture ... etc ... then we have far more serious problems than debating Military or Civilian trial ... we have cause for removing Bush and/or other bad guys from office.
This all seems odd that we are wrangling over such things as a title ... when we don't have facts as to what specific GC rights are being violated, if any. The germane issue to me, is whether they get a fair trial. And to presume that as Detainees means that they will not get such a fair trial is unfair to our Administration. It all seems like a lot of hand-waving at this point in time.
And, what is even more to my point is that I am still undecided on a lot of this. Being undecided and looking to form an opinion, means to me that I want some solid facts that one method or another will mean more or less fairness. So, can you give me solid facts that support the contention that these Detainees are being denied some rights ... or that any such denial is going to be harmful during this Interim process?
You cite the right to give just name, rank, and serial number. What will this mean if the US military juyst simply does not ask these question? What if right now they don't need to know or want to know? So what. These will be asked in time once the Admin decides wht to do by way of trail. Aside from thios right to give ones name, rank, and serial number, what other rights are factually being denied, and if so, what harm does it cause? I am open to facts, and if these peopole are being harmed in someway ... then by all means, lets get together and cry foul!
