[Zimphire]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5619-9614r.htm

[moki]

Interesting news; but not much can be said either way until the specific charges against him are enumerated.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by moki:
Interesting news; but not much can be said either way until the specific charges against him are enumerated.

The military doesn't arrest soldiers on these charges without good reason. They must have been watching this guy for a long time.

Anyone who converts to Islam, lives in Syria and then decides to reenter service as a Chaplain is begging for closer scrutiny. I bet the CI (counter intelligence) folks have had their ears to the ground for a long time.

[Zimphire]

What would be the punishment for such a thing if found guilty?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What would be the punishment for such a thing if found guilty?

It used to be that spies were killed, but during the cold war that method tended to fall out of favor. It's hard to say what the current administration will do. Of note is that the Geneva Convention does not apply to spies.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
It used to be that spies were killed, but during the cold war that method tended to fall out of favor. It's hard to say what the current administration will do. Of note is that the Geneva Convention does not apply to spies.

Doesn't apply to the Bush Adminstation either.

Especially since there was no formal declaration of war. (which is what's required for the Geneva Convention to be meaningful)... though we expect other countries to honor it regardless.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Doesn't apply to the Bush Adminstation either.

Especially since there was no formal declaration of war. (which is what's required for the Geneva Convention to be meaningful)... though we expect other countries to honor it regardless.

there hasn't been a formal declaration of war since world war two, robert. so what's your point?

prisoner of war status doesn't apply to certain people--al queda being one such group. And furthermore, that status is based on those individuals fighting for a particular country, not simply originating from it or being a citizen of it.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
prisoner of war status doesn't apply to certain people--al queda being one such group. And furthermore, that status is based on those individuals fighting for a particular country, not simply originating from it or being a citizen of it.

Not necessarily true. If you actually read the text of the Geneva convention it's much more hazy as to whether or not it applies to Al Queda. In some situations it definitely does. In others it's uncertain. And in a few it definitely doesn't.

[moki]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
The military doesn't arrest soldiers on these charges without good reason. They must have been watching this guy for a long time.

I agree; but the kooks will come out of the woodwork slamming this action. Just wait and see...

[Zimphire]

Looks like they just found one of those kooks.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Doesn't apply to the Bush Adminstation either.

Especially since there was no formal declaration of war. (which is what's required for the Geneva Convention to be meaningful)... though we expect other countries to honor it regardless.

The text quoted below appears in all the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

"Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Furthermore the General Provisions of the 1977 Protocol (I) additional to the 1949 Conventions state;

"3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions."

In other words war does not need to be declared for the Conventions to apply. Though the US has not ratified the applicable Additional Protocol it has indicated that it will abide by its rules which are broader than the original text of the 1949 Conventions they supplement and offers more leeway in the definition of combatants.

There are of course many -often contradictory- interpretations of what this actually means for those still detained in Cuba. Here is a link to one interpretation at a useful site for those who apparently have not read any of the Conventions but continue to make statements about them. Link

Another link PDF to an ASIL text from the conclusion of which comes the paragraph quoted below.

"The lack of certainty concerning the status of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters as illustrated by this analysis also raised questions concerning the United States' compliance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, which in light of the United States' past practice, should have resulted in the convocation of competent tribunals to independently determine whether Taliban and Al Queda fighters were not entitled to prisoner of war status."

Contrary to previous assertions by the Bush administration a competent tribunal not the opinion of the commander in chief of the armed forces of the opposing party -or his advisers and minions- should determine the status of these detainees in Cuba when their status is in doubt.

Chaplains are afforded special protection under the Conventions as long as they do not forfeit this right to protection by engaging in activities beyond what is required for the exercise of religion or as councilor of the detainees.

If I understand the articles I read dealing with spies correctly in order to be called a spy it has to be established that this chaplain was a member of the armed forces of the other party. A daunting task since it is the failure to recognize the combatants found on the battlefield in Afghanistan as an army that is the bases for the controversy that keeps them locked up in Cuba and provided the chaplain with a job opportunity.

Since he is a member of the US armed forces treason charges are more likely in my opinion. I could be wrong -or lying- of course.

[lurkalot]

None of you interested in proving that I'm lying? It was such an easy one to refute and all the clues are in the article. The status and treatment of he detainees aside the Geneva Conventions are not going to give you many clues if you really want to find out about possible punishment for the arrested Chaplain. Too busy to Google?
US military chaplain arrested and -according to the Washington Times article linked in the OP- charged with Sedition, Aiding the Enemy, Spying, Espionage and Failure to obey a general order being such fans of the rule of law and the US military I expected most of you had the UCMJ stored in the cranium ready to quote verbatim.

[Zimphire]

This sure isn't helping their Public Relations problem.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
there hasn't been a formal declaration of war since world war two, robert. so what's your point?

prisoner of war status doesn't apply to certain people--al queda being one such group. And furthermore, that status is based on those individuals fighting for a particular country, not simply originating from it or being a citizen of it.

Why is it that our government claimed Iraq was violating international law by putting our soldiers on TV.

Since the laws require a declaration of war... there was no war, hence no law to violate.

It's clear and simple. As the UN stated. Saddam didn't violate any laws with his treatment of soldiers.

[Troll]

The prisoners are being held illegally in Guantamo Bay. They weren't given a trial during the hostilities to determine their status. Therefore, under the Convention, they were, at all times, deemed to be prisoners of war. Since hostilities have now ceased, under the Geneva Convention they need to be released.

We had a long debate about this a while back. Simey even agreed finally that the prisoners should have either been tried or released. Have a look for the famous Guantanamo thread rather than rehash the arguments here.

Under the Geneva Convention, the US is obliged to transmit the names of the people being held not only to the Red Cross but to inform the families. So, the information he's accused of having should be in the public domain. If they say he's a spy, then I don't understand what value there is in collecting this information. For who? Al Qaeda must know who's missing. Perhaps human rights groups? My own professional society (the UK Law Society) is suing the UK government over this. Perhaps they're the ones who want the list?

This guy might well have had a legal obligation to do whatever he could to help those people. Transmitting their names to the Red Cross as the US is bound to under international law cannot, I think, be treason. You can't be guilty of treason for attempting to thwart the commission of a war crime. Besides, morally (and I'm sure religiously), the guy had an obligation to help these people. They are being denied basic human rights, being held indefinitely without hearing the charges against them, without having any representation. It's completely unacceptable. Bringing the reasons out for why he did this may be very embarassing for the US. Which is why you'll probably never hear them...

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Troll:
The prisoners are being held illegally in Guantamo Bay. They weren't given a trial during the hostilities to determine their status. Therefore, under the Convention, they were, at all times, deemed to be prisoners of war. Since hostilities have now ceased, under the Geneva Convention they need to be released.

We had a long debate about this a while back. Simey even agreed finally that the prisoners should have either been tried or released. Have a look for the famous Guantanamo thread rather than rehash the arguments here.

Under the Geneva Convention, the US is obliged to transmit the names of the people being held not only to the Red Cross but to inform the families. So, the information he's accused of having should be in the public domain. If they say he's a spy, then I don't understand what value there is in collecting this information. For who? Al Qaeda must know who's missing. Perhaps human rights groups? My own professional society (the UK Law Society) is suing the UK government over this. Perhaps they're the ones who want the list?

This guy might well have had a legal obligation to do whatever he could to help those people. Transmitting their names to the Red Cross as the US is bound to under international law cannot, I think, be treason. You can't be guilty of treason for attempting to thwart the commission of a war crime. Besides, morally (and I'm sure religiously), the guy had an obligation to help these people. They are being denied basic human rights, being held indefinitely without hearing the charges against them, without having any representation. It's completely unacceptable. Bringing the reasons out for why he did this may be very embarassing for the US. Which is why you'll probably never hear them...

I'm not going to get into the legalities of the Gitmo camp, as it's not really the topic.

As far as this chaplain is concerned though, I'm a little confused by your post Troll. Did it say in the article (or any other) that he was providing information to the Red Cross, or is that just supposition on your part? I'm not being facetious here, I am just wondering if it has been stated that's who he provided information too. I can think of other ways someone in that position could be spying. Maybe finding out from particular prisoners which plans had been compromised and relaying that information back to Al Qaeda, for example. If that's the case, I would see it as a pretty serious problem.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Since the laws require a declaration of war... there was no war, hence no law to violate.

Which laws require a declaration of war? Can you be more specific?

If you are still talking about the Geneva Conventions maybe the following link may be of assistance because you are quite clearly mistaken that the Conventions only apply in a case of declared war. Link

Quote:
"By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for the recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries [p.23] to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient."