Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Observer: If he's not a prisoner of war, why would he be tried by a military tribunal? Can you explain this to me?
sage1, he may or may not meet the conditions of (a). He clearly fails to meet the conditions of (b). Not knowing the circumstances of his capture, I cannot comment on (c). Under the Geneva Conventions, actions such as using civilians as cover during hostilities and killing noncombatants who do not agree with you are way, way outside the "laws and customs of war". Therefore, he also fails to meet the conditions of (d). I repeat, he is NOT entitled to POW status.
Observer: I took some time to read the part of the Geneva Convention that deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. Here is how it defines a POW: "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:" The document goes on to list 6 cases in which a person can be defines as a POW. You said Ghailani is not a POW because he isn't a part of the country's army and was not in uniform. I assert that he can be classified as a POW because he can fall under number 2 which reads, "2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
It seems, perhaps, that he might not satisfy all of the conditions, but honestly, I am not sure.
What are your thoughts?
Observer - I understand your reasoning about the Geneva Convention (I still have to look at the document though). However, how does it support your first premise that "This is just another in a long series of examples of stupidity by the Obama administration"? You made the comment, but I can't see how what you are saying shows Obama's stupidity.
Can you clarify?
OK, whatever ???
Well, I guess the US can operate like some countries do.
Claim that a journalist, embassy employee or aid worker is in fact a foreign agent. Claim that a soldier is in fact a criminal.
Then all of the above receive a speedy trial, the same day, and a immediate sentencing, be it prison or execution.
"All this says to me is that you are worried that the previous administration treated the Geneva Convention and existing US law like a soiled diaper therefore endangering any future fair and lawful trial?"
But now it's OK to kill a terrorist without an arrest or trial in a foreign country with a Predator drone - makes sense to me. Funny how the "law" can be twisted around to fit any scenario you want - just depends on which side you're on, I guess.
" I wonder if he is released and granted permanent resident status if he will be allowed to bring his wife and family to the US also?"
All this says to me is that you are worried that the previous administration treated the Geneva Convention and existing US law like a soiled diaper therefore endangering any future fair and lawful trial?
Perhaps if they hadn't been so blasé about it you would have more faith in a just outcome?
This is just another in a long series of examples of stupidity by the Obama administration and overreach by the Federal Judiciary. Not only are prisoners of war only entitled to those rights available under the Geneva Convention, to which we are a signatory, but Ghailani is not entitled to even those rights. He was not part of any country's army and was not in uniform when captured. The only rights to which he is entitled are those the Department of Defense cares to afford him. Moving him from Gitmo to the US for trial in a Federal Court is insane. He should have been tried by a Military Tribunal at Gitmo, found guilty and hanged.
This serves as a good example fo why we need to follow the rules. It would be terrible if the charges were dismissed on a technicality that could have been avoided.
Why isn't he considered a prisoner of war? I thought prisoners of war weren't entitled to the same rights citizens are - such as a speedy trial. Can someone explain this?