[Taliesin]

.., it's also funny cause the actual bombers are already dead thanks to a suicide-bombing. But two of the six organisators and funders of the attack on the Cole-war-ship are sentenced to death, eventhough one of them was not in court but in US-custody.

It's interesting because if there is indeed a war between Al-Kaida and the US, and Osama Bin Ladin has declared war against the US since 1991, when the US built and manned military bases in Saudi Arabia, and the US has accepted the war-challenge at the latest after the 93-bombing in the worldtrade-center, then every military attackers from Al-Kaida captured fall under the term of POW. Is it possible to sentence POWs to death in a court?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3699426.stm

Discuss.

Taliesin

[Spheric Harlot]

Well, you gotta distinguish between a "War" war and the PR-term "war", used to fool the electorate into accepting military action and large numbers of civilians dying. Calling the "War on Terror" just that was the only way to link and justify the Iraq invasion with terrorism in the voting public's eye.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
every military attackers from Al-Kaida captured fall under the term of POW. Is it possible to sentence POWs to death in a court?

No, terrorists aren't POWs because they don't meet the requirements for being a POW under the Geneva Convention. In order to be a POW you have to fit within these requirements:

(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.

Geneva Convention (Third) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Terrorists don't operate according to any of these rules except possibly the first one. Additionally, to answer your question, POW's can be tried for war crimes. The sentence for many war crimes (at least under US law) is death.

If you search this subject -- the status of unlawful combatants -- you will find many discussions about it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Terrorists don't operate according to any of these rules except possibly the first one.

I'm not sure someone who attacks a military target like the Cole with an explosives-laden boat doesn't qualify as a legal combatant, but let's leave that aside for a moment.

There's another relevant rule that you left out - namely that you can also become a POW under the Third Geneva Convention by being *deemed* to be a POW. Every person captured during a war is deemed to be a POW until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.

That means that everyone at Guantanamo is a POW since they were never determined by a competent tribunal not to be POW's. Indeed what's more interesting is that they were all deemed POW's at the time the War in Afghanistan ended and that they therefore had to be released within a reasonable time. I believe you conceded that point in prior discussions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm not sure someone who attacks a military target like the Cole with an explosives-laden boat doesn't qualify as a legal combatant, but let's leave that aside for a moment.

There's another relevant rule that you left out - namely that you can also become a POW under the Third Geneva Convention by being *deemed* to be a POW. Every person captured during a war is deemed to be a POW until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.

That means that everyone at Guantanamo is a POW since they were never determined by a competent tribunal not to be POW's. Indeed what's more interesting is that they were all deemed POW's at the time the War in Afghanistan ended and that they therefore had to be released within a reasonable time. I believe you conceded that point in prior discussions.

I think you overstate things. It does not contain a presumption in favor of POW status. What it says is more common sense:

Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

They aren't "deemed" POWs -- that's impossible. Only people covered by Article 4 can ever actually be POWs. Persons believed to be unlawful combatants (in the words of the Convention "persons, having committed a belligerent act") who are captured are just protected by the Convention until such time as their status can be determined by a competant tribunal. A competant tribunal is generally a panel of military officers, although it could range up to a full military trial. Until then, they are treated consistent with the Convention. But they aren't presumptively POWs.

In any case, this wouldn't protect these particular terrorists because any trial that convicts them of war crimes would necessarily cause them to fail the fourth part of the Article 4 test -- operating in accordance to the laws and conduct of war. It would also most likely include evidence that would also exclude them such as not wearing a distinctive mark visible at a distance. Thus their conviction as war criminals would put them outside the protection of the Convention.

Secondly, and more practically, I think these individuals were simply tried and convicted under Yemeni criminal law. That's always an option, and perfectly acceptable. The actions of unlawful combatants aren't cloathed with the legitimacy of lawful combatants. So when they organize, it's not the organization of an army, but rather it can be treated as a simple criminal conspiracy. And when they kill it can be treated simply as murder.

The laws of war only protect non-combatants and lawful combatants. Anyone else who wages private war not in accordance to the laws of war puts themselves in jeopardy both as combatants (who can be engaged as military targets) and criminal law. It's really up to the states to figure out what to do with them.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Persons believed to be unlawful combatants (in the words of the Convention "persons, having committed a belligerent act") who are captured are just protected by the Convention until such time as their status can be determined by a competant tribunal.

Okay I'm happy with your formulation. It has precisely the same practical effect. Whether you *are* a Prisoner of War or merely *enjoy* all of the rights that a Prisoner of War has, it really makes no difference.

Either way, most of the prisoners in Guantanamo enjoy the protection of the Third Geneva Convention - a protection which the United States has systematically and illegally refused.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In any case, this wouldn't protect these particular terrorists because any trial that convicts them of war crimes would necessarily cause them to fail the fourth part of the Article 4 test -- operating in accordance to the laws and conduct of war.

I agree with your other points entirely. This case isn't about a war on terror at all. It's dealing with terrorism the way terrorism has always been dealt with - under criminal law.

I think Taliesin's point was more global though - that this can't be a real war if the rules of war don't apply. Granted, this is not the best context to raise the point in. What you're doing is saying that you can wage war on a group that isn't capable of waging war back against you. I think you either have to admit that it would be possible technically for Al Qaeda cadres to be protected by the Third Geneva Convention or you have to admit that it isn't a real war, but you can't have it both ways. I think that is Taliesin's point.

I mean, let's assume Bin Laden got his guys together in the port, they put uniforms on with a little Al Qaeda badges, he then ordered them to go down to their explosives-laden boat and go off and attack the enemy (who they had declared was on a long time before) by blowing up a military ship. If one survived and was captured, would you call him a POW? I think you would have to if your War on Terror were a real war.

[dcolton]

How can anyone bitch about a dead terrorist? Sentenced by a Yemen judge, not the US?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
What you're doing is saying that you can wage war on a group that isn't capable of waging war back against you.

Al Queda can wage war. It is waging war right now. It is just doing so by means that civilized countries have rejected. It could wage war according to the laws of war. As you say, they could put themselves under proper command, wear uniforms or distinctive marks visible at a distance, carry their arms openly, and behave according to the rules of war. That would mean they couldn't deliberately target civilians, would have to give quarter, and so on. If they did all those things, then sure, they would be entitled to POW status.

The problem is that they choose to flout the civilized standards of the laws of war precisely because they find them inconvenient. What they want, and what you seem bizarrely to argue for, is for them to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be protected by the laws of war when it suits them, and at the same time not to have to abide by them.

That is completely contrary to the purpose of the laws of war, and the reason why the Geneva Conventions are structured the way they are. The purpose of humanitarian war is to mitigate the horrors of war, and to protect non-combatants, not to equalize the playing field between those who abide by the laws of war and those who don't.

The Geneva Convention is structured like a carrot and stick. Play by the standards, and you get rewarded with protections. Violate the civilized rules, and you don't.

You seem to think that the US and its allies is being unfair to al-Queda and other terrorists. That's just bizarre.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem is that they choose to flout the civilized standards of the laws of war precisely because they find them inconvenient. What they want, and what you seem bizarrely to argue for, is for them to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be protected by the laws of war when it suits them, and at the same time not to have to abide by them.

Hold on. Aren't you doing what you asked us not to - namely painting everyone in Al Qaeda's army a war criminal because some of them have committed war crimes? Many of the Al Qaeda cadres that defended Tora Bora hadn't killed civilians. And I don't think anyone in Al Qaeda has yet argued that the rules of war apply to them. Most of them probably don't care how they're treated if captured. It is US who is demanding that these people be treated properly according to the laws you have chosen to apply to the conflict and there are entirely different reasons why we expect you to do that.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That is completely contrary to the purpose of the laws of war, and the reason why the Geneva Conventions are structured the way they are. ...

You seem to think that the US and its allies is being unfair to al-Queda and other terrorists. That's just bizarre.

No, I don't think you're treating Al Qaeda terrorists unfairly. I think you're treating people who aren't terrorists unfairly because you are trying to get around the laws that apply. But really what I think is that you aren't waging a real war with them. They aren't playing by the rules of war because they aren't waging real war. They are conducting a terrorist campaign against us. Reclassifying terrorism as war is what gets you into all this trouble with human rights groups and requires us to do this contorted arguing about what the Geneva Conventions mean. Besides, you haven't declared war on Al Qaeda, you've declared war on terrorism.

The only advantage you get from calling it a war is a PR advantage. It makes people more afraid so they can be manipulated more and it makes everyone think you're really serious about the problem.

We could do precisely what was done in Afghanistan and what is being done domestically in every Western country to combat terrorism even if we weren't in a state of war. European countries fought in the war in Afghanistan and are battling terrorism without needing to declare war on terrorism. I don't see how it helps you ... except that it lets you hold people indefinitely without charge. Well, you could have ignored US law instead of international law and achieved the same thing. Besides which, we both agree that nothing was achieved by holding those guys in Guantanamo without charge or trial.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by dcolton:
How can anyone bitch about a dead terrorist? Sentenced by a Yemen judge, not the US?

Unlike you, some of us care about the legality of killing other humans.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Reclassifying terrorism as war is what gets you into all this trouble with human rights groups

Oh the horror!

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Unlike you, some of us care about the legality of killing other humans.

I kinda thought that was what law was invented for in the first place..

(hang on, or was it the protection of property )

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh the horror!

I can do the quoting just one sentence out of my post thing too.

"The only advantage you get from calling it a war is a PR advantage. We could do precisely what was done in Afghanistan and what is being done domestically in every Western country to combat terrorism even if we weren't in a state of war."

Okay, two sentences

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Al Queda can wage war. It is waging war right now. It is just doing so by means that civilized countries have rejected.

You mean like attacking without provocation?

[PacHead]

Kill the lowlifes. All of 'em.

Hopefully our little european/canadian etc. friends don't shed too many tears.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Unlike you, some of us care about the legality of killing other humans.

unless they are jewish...or american, right?

How many sailors died on the USS Cole that day? Do you care? Or are you so hate filled that you can only support the life cold blooded killers known as terrorists?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dcolton:
unless they are jewish...or american, right?

How many sailors died on the USS Cole that day? Do you care? Or are you so hate filled that you can only support the life cold blooded killers known as terrorists?

They don't care one bit. The replies in this thread are disgusting.

We're not talking about any innocent civilians or anything like that here. We are talking about 100% proven, guilty mass murderers.

Yet they still defend these scum. May the next bombs go off on their soil, as opposed to ours, since they obviously love these savage murderers.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by PacHead:
They don't care one bit. The replies in this thread are disgusting.

We're not talking about any innocent civilians or anything like that here. We are talking about 100% proven, guilty mass murderers.

Yet they still defend these scum. May the next bombs go off on their soil, as opposed to ours, since they obviously love these savage murderers.

God bless America, and only America!

(Watched Head of State last night)

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Is it possible to sentence POWs to death in a court?

Taliesin

I believe that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. (Like that would ever stop the U.S.)
Soldiers of wars are protected from prosecution for "lawful acts" of war. I don't know whether a suicide bombing is a "lawful act" of war, so it does depend on the circumstances of the situation.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You mean like attacking without provocation?

You forget that they get to define when they feel provoked and for what, not you.

[Atomic Rooster]

Well the winning side executed many after WWII in Europe and Asia.

Off with their heads and discuss later.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by dcolton:
unless they are jewish...or american, right?

How many sailors died on the USS Cole that day? Do you care? Or are you so hate filled that you can only support the life cold blooded killers known as terrorists?

Sailors? I don't think there were any sailors involved in that event. As far as I know the USS-cole was a military ship, full with soldiers; and again as far as I know that ship wasn't travelling with the help of the wind.

Targetting US-soldiers in war-times is definetly nothing to condemn and not terroristic. Not to say that Al-Kaida isn't using terrorism, they do it often, but not in this case.

Taliesin