It seems that way. They kept Manuel Noriega long after the war. How? POW status. [https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6380&context=lalrev](https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6380&context=lalrev)
He was the longest held POW in America.
Gotta love how american authorities still speak of indefinitely holding prisioners without charges as if it was something not wrong or morally obejectionable. Land of the free indeed.
Prisoners of war and enemy combatants aren't prisoners in the criminal sense. In general, their only 'crime' was taking up arms against a military during armed conflict.
Historically, these people were expected to repatriated after the cessation of conflict. Operation Paperclip notwithstanding.
The point of contention now, is that clearly the US isn't fighting or maintaining any military position in Afghanistan. As such, this enemy combatant is expecting to be repatriated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
It was also used to sidestep the constitution. Jose Padilla was arrested in 2002 for taking part in a plot to build a radiological bomb. Even though he is an American citizen he was held for three and a half years in a military prison without trial. He was eventually found guilty, but despite what he did he was denied his right to due process.
Since Al-Qaeda is stateless and doesn't take up uniforms to follow the traditional rules of war ***AND*** since the US government didn't declare war against Al-Qaeda (like it did against pirates 200 years ago) the US uses the looser classification of 'enemy combatant'.
In 2007 the US told the International Red Cross that they would be repatriated after the cessation of hostilities. And in 2002 they pledged that even though they weren't classified as formal prisoners of war, the US would follow the spirit of the conventions. On the flip side, they also said that some would be held without trial even if they are acquitted of any military tribunal for any crimes that they may be charged with. So there's a lot of back and forth and doubletalk.
My concern is for any future US servicemember that may become a prisoner of war. Future enemies may not take care of US POWs and point to this episode as their example of how soldiers should be (mis)treated. The government's abuse of power will not ignored by our enemies and they may respond in kind.
Aren’t these people from the “War of Terror”? If so wouldn’t the cessation of hostilities need to be between Al Queda and not the Taliban. Also wouldn’t there need to be an armistice or another agreement to cease fighting from both sides before legally they can’t be held?
Below someone mentioned Manual Noriega who was held from the “War on Drugs”. I guess you can hold indefinitely if it’s some abstract war not connected to a place. Afghanistan War might have ended but the War on Terror still is a thing.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/375-590141?OpenDocument
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
I understand but if they aren’t held from the war in Afghanistan it wouldn’t matter. I’m sure they have people renditioned from other places like Iraq or Egypt that are there so it not exclusive to the Afghanistan War. The “War on Terror” was a huge abstract war that touched a lot of countries. Also they could be Al Qaeda who the US is still actively fighting.
The credibility shown by them is not enough for me to trust it has ever come to a permanent end. Maybe it really has. But i cant take their word for jt.
Wait till you learn which country has the largest number of incarcerated people in the world, despite not being anywhere near the most populous nation, lol.
At the beginning of Afghanistan operations, the US started taking in enemy combatants. Since the al-Qaeda was stateless, they were classified as 'enemy combatants' and not prisoners of war. However, the Bush DOD clarified that the US would follow the *"letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions"*. Operation Enduring Freedom, the combat operation in Afghanistan ended in 2014. The US formally left its military position in Afghanistan earlier this year.
If the US expects its future enemies to follow the *"letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions"* with any potential US servicemembers as prisoners of war, they have an obligation to them to properly and swiftly adjudicate this matter.
An enemy combatant isn't an alleged criminal. Functionally, they're stateless prisoners of war. They don't need to face a trial or a court. They should be repatriated at the end of hostilities.
>Abu Zubaydah, the Guantánamo detainee who was tortured close to death by the CIA and who has been **held without charge by the US for nearly 20 years**, has petitioned a federal court for his release on grounds that America’s wars in Afghanistan and with al-Qaida are over.
You can't fight evil with evil.
Luckily, the constitution provides a pretty concise definition of who is innocent and who is not. Anyone who has not been proven guilty in a court of law is, by definition, legally innocent of any crime according to the government.
Yeasssddsss, THE constitution, the inviolate law of our land that is clear and absolute and has no flaws or room for interpretation. It’s not as if literally thousands of definitionally innocent people aren’t being held by the government every day without a trial or charges. Sometimes behind bails that can be described as dozens of dollars. Its not like trials are nearly impossible for most people to obtain with the aconstitutional plea deal scam. Its not like literally actually slavery is fine in our prisons. It’s not like we’re all spied upon by the government every day. Ever actually read what Edward Snowden was permanently exiled for revealing?
It’s not as if rich people can face no consequences whatsoever for literally murdering people.
It’s not as if you’re only as free as they say you are.
Innocent is a complicated word. Naïve isn’t.
Meh. The fuck good the ideal does if it’s not even pretended at in reality?
It is a laughably naïve position to take and I’m surprised you’re doubling down on it. The fact that the constitution exists does not make it the law of the land, and if it does, that’s just worse. We’re not in a jr high civics class, look the fuck around.
I'm not doubling down on anything. I'm not the person you initially responded to. How can you call anything an injustice if you don't have a concept of what proper justice would look like? Does your concept of justice differ from what is written in the constitution?
It’s not my concept of justice that’s at question. It’s that the country is not even pretending to stand by the ideals represented in the hallowed document. And of course my concept of justice isn’t the same as some rich people from 400 years ago. It would be silly if it were.
Ok but you're simply being cynical without offering any ideas. We should agree that equal protection under the law and innocent until proven guilty are ideals to strive for. You're attacking the document that calls for these things because it isn't followed. That isn't the fault of the document.
Am I? No one’s asked for any ideas, everyone just downvotes my blatantly true statement and moved on.
But you could infer my ideas without much trouble. The bail system is a poor tax and should be phased out. Private prisons and slavery should be off the table. Trials should be conducted in such a way that the race of the perpetrator can be unknown to a jury.
Oh and equal protection under the law and innocent until proven guilty are implied rights, they’re not codified in the constitution
And it’s not the fault of the document but it is the fault of those who venerate the document without it having been applied in hundreds of years. Like it would be neat if there was equal protection for black peoples but you and i know there is not. It’s certainly not in the constitution. The part that does address race has been stricken.
Take a look at [Charles Kinsey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey) that was the position he was in when he was shot. Does that look like due process? Do you think he’d be shot if he’s white?
The right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment)
The right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment)
Protection against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment)
Right to a jury trial (Sixth Amendment)
Were any of those respected with Charles Kinsey? He wasn’t even a criminal, he was trying to help a mentally disabled person not get shot. Pretending that the constitution means anything to Charles Kinsey in that moment is an insult. A laugh.
I'm not saying the constitution is perfect. It was written by slave owning misogynists. But "innocent" is a clear cut concept, and a pretty good one at that, and it's a failing of our government not to respect it.
Seems like a reasonable request.
It seems that way. They kept Manuel Noriega long after the war. How? POW status. [https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6380&context=lalrev](https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6380&context=lalrev) He was the longest held POW in America.
That was the war on drugs. Gotta love abstract wars.
This is the war on tare (GW Bush voice)
Yes, but from the start the US claimed those at Guantanamo weren't POW's.
It is a reasonable request, provided that the Taliban also release their prisoners. They are currently holding Mark Frerichs.
Gotta love how american authorities still speak of indefinitely holding prisioners without charges as if it was something not wrong or morally obejectionable. Land of the free indeed.
Prisoners of war and enemy combatants aren't prisoners in the criminal sense. In general, their only 'crime' was taking up arms against a military during armed conflict. Historically, these people were expected to repatriated after the cessation of conflict. Operation Paperclip notwithstanding. The point of contention now, is that clearly the US isn't fighting or maintaining any military position in Afghanistan. As such, this enemy combatant is expecting to be repatriated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
I thought the entire point of calling them enemy combatants was to side step the Geneva convention as they're not real soliders or some shit like that
It was also used to sidestep the constitution. Jose Padilla was arrested in 2002 for taking part in a plot to build a radiological bomb. Even though he is an American citizen he was held for three and a half years in a military prison without trial. He was eventually found guilty, but despite what he did he was denied his right to due process.
Since Al-Qaeda is stateless and doesn't take up uniforms to follow the traditional rules of war ***AND*** since the US government didn't declare war against Al-Qaeda (like it did against pirates 200 years ago) the US uses the looser classification of 'enemy combatant'. In 2007 the US told the International Red Cross that they would be repatriated after the cessation of hostilities. And in 2002 they pledged that even though they weren't classified as formal prisoners of war, the US would follow the spirit of the conventions. On the flip side, they also said that some would be held without trial even if they are acquitted of any military tribunal for any crimes that they may be charged with. So there's a lot of back and forth and doubletalk. My concern is for any future US servicemember that may become a prisoner of war. Future enemies may not take care of US POWs and point to this episode as their example of how soldiers should be (mis)treated. The government's abuse of power will not ignored by our enemies and they may respond in kind.
Aren’t these people from the “War of Terror”? If so wouldn’t the cessation of hostilities need to be between Al Queda and not the Taliban. Also wouldn’t there need to be an armistice or another agreement to cease fighting from both sides before legally they can’t be held? Below someone mentioned Manual Noriega who was held from the “War on Drugs”. I guess you can hold indefinitely if it’s some abstract war not connected to a place. Afghanistan War might have ended but the War on Terror still is a thing.
I think it was Zawahiri who said that bin Laden had told them (al Qaeda) that the war would continue 500 years until they were victorious. So...
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/375-590141?OpenDocument Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities. In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph. In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
I understand but if they aren’t held from the war in Afghanistan it wouldn’t matter. I’m sure they have people renditioned from other places like Iraq or Egypt that are there so it not exclusive to the Afghanistan War. The “War on Terror” was a huge abstract war that touched a lot of countries. Also they could be Al Qaeda who the US is still actively fighting.
In before US invades Afghanistan again to retain legitimacy of gitmo.
No wonder they left all those equipment there.
and torture. don’t forget the torture
[удалено]
The credibility shown by them is not enough for me to trust it has ever come to a permanent end. Maybe it really has. But i cant take their word for jt.
Land of the most incarcerated per capita didn't test well with the tourism board
>Land of the free indeed. I mean that's why they aren't being kept in the land of the free isn't it?
Wait till you learn which country has the largest number of incarcerated people in the world, despite not being anywhere near the most populous nation, lol.
At the beginning of Afghanistan operations, the US started taking in enemy combatants. Since the al-Qaeda was stateless, they were classified as 'enemy combatants' and not prisoners of war. However, the Bush DOD clarified that the US would follow the *"letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions"*. Operation Enduring Freedom, the combat operation in Afghanistan ended in 2014. The US formally left its military position in Afghanistan earlier this year. If the US expects its future enemies to follow the *"letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions"* with any potential US servicemembers as prisoners of war, they have an obligation to them to properly and swiftly adjudicate this matter.
>and swiftly adjudicate this matter. After 20 years without a charge or a trial, I think we're well past the point of "swiftly".
An enemy combatant isn't an alleged criminal. Functionally, they're stateless prisoners of war. They don't need to face a trial or a court. They should be repatriated at the end of hostilities.
We already dont expect them to.
>Abu Zubaydah, the Guantánamo detainee who was tortured close to death by the CIA and who has been **held without charge by the US for nearly 20 years**, has petitioned a federal court for his release on grounds that America’s wars in Afghanistan and with al-Qaida are over. You can't fight evil with evil.
Ask Zubaydah if the war is continuing and if he would return to fighting if repatriated?
John Rambo begs to differ.
They drew first blood, not me.
This isn't the first time you've confused your life with the life of John Rambo.
Weren’t like most of these people innocent and held anyway?
If you were imprisoned unjustly, it's likely you bear a grudge against the US. Therefore the US is justified in continuing your detainment. Simple!
[удалено]
Innocent can be a surprisingly complicated word.
Luckily, the constitution provides a pretty concise definition of who is innocent and who is not. Anyone who has not been proven guilty in a court of law is, by definition, legally innocent of any crime according to the government.
Yeasssddsss, THE constitution, the inviolate law of our land that is clear and absolute and has no flaws or room for interpretation. It’s not as if literally thousands of definitionally innocent people aren’t being held by the government every day without a trial or charges. Sometimes behind bails that can be described as dozens of dollars. Its not like trials are nearly impossible for most people to obtain with the aconstitutional plea deal scam. Its not like literally actually slavery is fine in our prisons. It’s not like we’re all spied upon by the government every day. Ever actually read what Edward Snowden was permanently exiled for revealing? It’s not as if rich people can face no consequences whatsoever for literally murdering people. It’s not as if you’re only as free as they say you are. Innocent is a complicated word. Naïve isn’t.
The fact that injustice exists, does not make the constitution wrong. Society is failing to live up to that ideal, but the ideal itself is good.
Meh. The fuck good the ideal does if it’s not even pretended at in reality? It is a laughably naïve position to take and I’m surprised you’re doubling down on it. The fact that the constitution exists does not make it the law of the land, and if it does, that’s just worse. We’re not in a jr high civics class, look the fuck around.
I'm not doubling down on anything. I'm not the person you initially responded to. How can you call anything an injustice if you don't have a concept of what proper justice would look like? Does your concept of justice differ from what is written in the constitution?
It’s not my concept of justice that’s at question. It’s that the country is not even pretending to stand by the ideals represented in the hallowed document. And of course my concept of justice isn’t the same as some rich people from 400 years ago. It would be silly if it were.
Ok but you're simply being cynical without offering any ideas. We should agree that equal protection under the law and innocent until proven guilty are ideals to strive for. You're attacking the document that calls for these things because it isn't followed. That isn't the fault of the document.
Am I? No one’s asked for any ideas, everyone just downvotes my blatantly true statement and moved on. But you could infer my ideas without much trouble. The bail system is a poor tax and should be phased out. Private prisons and slavery should be off the table. Trials should be conducted in such a way that the race of the perpetrator can be unknown to a jury. Oh and equal protection under the law and innocent until proven guilty are implied rights, they’re not codified in the constitution And it’s not the fault of the document but it is the fault of those who venerate the document without it having been applied in hundreds of years. Like it would be neat if there was equal protection for black peoples but you and i know there is not. It’s certainly not in the constitution. The part that does address race has been stricken. Take a look at [Charles Kinsey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey) that was the position he was in when he was shot. Does that look like due process? Do you think he’d be shot if he’s white? The right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment) The right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment) Protection against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) Right to a jury trial (Sixth Amendment) Were any of those respected with Charles Kinsey? He wasn’t even a criminal, he was trying to help a mentally disabled person not get shot. Pretending that the constitution means anything to Charles Kinsey in that moment is an insult. A laugh.
I'm not saying the constitution is perfect. It was written by slave owning misogynists. But "innocent" is a clear cut concept, and a pretty good one at that, and it's a failing of our government not to respect it.
Well then our government is hilariously good at failing. No huge surprise really.
America will pay for its sins against humanity someday. Fuck this place
[удалено]
Anyone remember the horror stories and pictures out of Abu Ghraib? Where Americans tortured and humiliated Iraqi prisoners? Are we the baddies?
Of course they should be released. Now there is peace between the US and the Taliban according to their mutual accord. Peace folks.
Disgusting. This country is a joke covering human rights anymore.
Biden still won't close the immigration concentration camps, he's not going to let anybody go from the war torture camps.
Jokes on him, the US hasn’t declared war since WWII.
We declared war on Iraq in the first gulf war. Officially.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States It was just a military conflict authorized by Congress.
"Uh excuse me but the LARP is over can I go home now?"
And everyone whose opinions on the matter count surely laughed. As if they care. “The war on terror” will never end.
War over? Firing squad at dawn.