Thread: Obama Keeping Bush Policy On This Subject

Do you all remember the old 80's cliche, "Where's the beef?" that got so popular?

Well, this time, in the same tone, "Where the change?"

One of my biggest gripes with the Bush Administration is that battlefield participants against allied and American forces were given "Detainee" status rather than "POW" status and give them at least the basic rights afforded to combatants captured on the battlefield as assigned by the Geneva convention.

Obama administration keeps Bush view on Afghanistan detainees - CNN.com

They need to be POWs and nothing more, this detaining garbage is making our policies as bad as those countries we oppose in their methodology. I was kind of expecting Obama to go ahead an afford them the correct status.

I guess not.

Thank goodness I didn't vote for this kind of change, you know, to keep a Bush policy that was wrong from the get go.

You should review the original Geneva accords some time. They were an agreement among nations that signed the documents. The rights were not some kind of universal legal principle.

And even among those nations signing, the folks we have been picking up on the battlefield who have not been in uniform, have no accountable chain of command and can often be treated as spies. They are the equivalent of 18th century pirates.

Now unfortunately for those of us who want to protect our country, the courts have been begging, borrowing and stealing rights from any place they can find them.

The accords have been revised and universalized. Read Hamdan Vs Rumsfeld for the latest views.

But even there, folks who are found on the battlefield, out of uniform and committing war crimes (killing civilians would be a good example) do NOT have to be treated as POWs.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

You should review the original Geneva accords some time. They were an agreement among nations that signed the documents. The rights were not some kind of universal legal principle.
I beg to differ. It was a treaty we as a nation signed and therefore it is the law of the land.
And even among those nations signing, the folks we have been picking up on the battlefield who have not been in uniform, have no accountable chain of command and can often be treated as spies. They are the equivalent of 18th century pirates.
Saying that does not change the fact that we, meaning our intelligence and military communities, refer to them as members of organized resistance or insurgents with leaders who have either been killed or are in hiding. So to suggest that they have no accountable chain of command does not wash.
Now unfortunately for those of us who want to protect our country, the courts have been begging, borrowing and stealing rights from any place they can find them.
Rights are God given and do not have to be begged, borrowed or stolen.
The accords have been revised and universalized. Read Hamdan Vs Rumsfeld for the latest views.
Yes and the nation has never formally rejected any revisions or the accords as a whole and thereby are bound by the accords.
But even there, folks who are found on the battlefield, out of uniform and committing war crimes (killing civilians would be a good example) do NOT have to be treated as POWs.

I know you are not suggesting that it is ok to kill civilians as long as you are in uniform are you? This thing about being in uniform seems to be your main argument for POW status which may seem valid and does have merit but should not mean that anyone should be denied basic human rights even if they have committed atrocities.

There are a few problems going on here with regards to Iraq and Aganistan. If they are both wars in the traditional sense then there needs to be an end to them. How is that end detirmined? Iraq could be considered over shortly as the controll of most sectors of Iraq is already made by the Iraqi military. The USA is mosty just support now. But Afganistan! We will never be able tocontrol all of it and Afganistan will not be able to control any of it. Afganistan will be an endless war.

Second is this uniform thing. It is legit to not call them POWs but really it is stupid. If we treat these combatants different then we run the rick of having their cature turn into a "crime" rather than a military action. Traditionally POWs can also be criminals of a war crime. There is really no reason why those at Gitmo could not be tried of a crime and then if found not guilty then returned to Gitmo as POWs.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

You should review the original Geneva accords some time. They were an agreement among nations that signed the documents. The rights were not some kind of universal legal principle.

And even among those nations signing, the folks we have been picking up on the battlefield who have not been in uniform, have no accountable chain of command and can often be treated as spies. They are the equivalent of 18th century pirates.

Now unfortunately for those of us who want to protect our country, the courts have been begging, borrowing and stealing rights from any place they can find them.

The accords have been revised and universalized. Read Hamdan Vs Rumsfeld for the latest views.

But even there, folks who are found on the battlefield, out of uniform and committing war crimes (killing civilians would be a good example) do NOT have to be treated as POWs.

The British hanged pirates without a trial, but more often made them walk the plank. If thier crime involved killing British subjects, they got creative.

We should have released these people when we found them out the window of planes and off the decks of the ships they were transported in after we "questioned" them in private. But Bush needed trophys for his propaganda purposes. And like the new situation in Aghanistan, without Musharriff, it is infinitly more complicated for Obama, and all of us, at the worst possible time.

Now, we have non citizen, non soldiers, and no existing legal protocol to deal with them fairly in the eyes of Americans. Anything Obama's adminstration comes up with will be without precident. Anything Obama's adminstration comes up with will be imperfect. Anything Obama's administration comes up with will inspire phony outrage from the Conservative media and Conservative Americans who supported trophy taking and perpetuated this garbage...then dumped it all at Obama's feet and cry even more phony outrage...one month after Obama kept his promise and has begun the closing of Gitmo. This shamelfull emabrressment to America is a Conservative creation. Obama is just trying to clean up the mess so he can focus on the economy. 911 Republicans trashed this nation and Bush sacrificed national security for propaganda ops.

Hamdan V Rusmfeld...President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and the special military commissions under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. Whats wrong with that?