Posted on 01/07/2006 6:08:02 AM PST by mcg2000
Actually the Geneva Convention IV of 1949 doesn´t differentiate between non-state combatants and state-combatants. So-called partisans in WW2 would have been combatants under the GC IV, because they worn special insignia and their arms openly.
"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."
The terrorists aren´t combatants because they cannot be identified by insignia and they don´t wear their arms openly (in most cases).
Those at Gitmo have been interrogated and some have been invaluable sources of information about planned attacks on the US, etc.. The problem is we are at war, and the uniform the enemy wears is flip-flops and a hood or towel over his head. He follows orders, all right, the orders of a shadowy Muslim leader, whether it's the local mullah, or someone in Fallujah, Tikrit, Iran or Syria. Islamofascists are all in bed with bin Laden and al Qaeda, whether they're driving ice cream trucks in Oregon, and sending their kids to train abroad in terrorist camps, or living the good life in London and blowing up the Underground. President Bush's upcoming State of the Union speech may well connect the dots in excruciating detail.
If it were Reuters quoting an American conservative I'd be skeptical until I heard it somewhere else. But like most Americans, I take it for granted that most Europeans are stupid about Gitmo (and lots of other things), so I'm fairly confident Reuters quoted Merkel correctly. I'll change my mind ont his when I hear some European leader actually stand up and speak the truth to his/her citizens about what's going on in Europe and the world.
Why?
Because it ain´t right to keep people in prison for longer than 1 year without conviction. We came over this after the middle ages.
LOL! Thankfully you live in Germany and not here so you really don't have a say in how we treat the people we are at war with.
I fear the Chancellor has fallen prey to that 'we're past violence' mindset. You know, the 'we don't wage war anymore because our society has found better ways to solve problems'. Well, that's fine on paper, but in real life it will get you killed as quick as a wink. Ask Theo VanGogh. These terrorists are free to travel through the EU, no papers, no nothing. More and more of them are emigrating from the Middle East and Africa every single day. Millions of them already there, having many, many children...a deliberate policy to overwhelm the local population. Spain's building a wall, and not because she wants to keep Spaniards in. Germans are leaving Germany, not simply to find higher paying jobs overseas, but to escape Muslim violence already well underway in Sweden and France. And just the other day, New Zealand announced that being born in NZ doesn't automatically make you a Kiwi and grant you citizenship. They're reading the tea leaves.
What you said.
And the symbolism of Cuba is important.
Cuba is Fidel Castros island prison.
No one leaves without his go ahead except by risking their lives for 90 miles across the Florida Strait.
I wonder how many have NOT made it.
Tens of thousands is my guess.
Do any Germans care?
Well, it's really apples and oranges and these Gitmo detainees weren't picked up trying to rob the corner Quickie-Mart. We are at war, with 3000 dead on 9/11, and treating enemy combatants as ordinary criminals is ridiculous.
So in other words, Reuters is biased except when it is not? Interesting take.
That terminology salad is mixing apples with oranges and with bananas.
Being a P.O.W. has nothing to do with being a "combatant". A "combatant" simply means an individual that engages in the planning or execution of attacks by armed force.
Military medical personnel and chaplains are classified as “non-combatants” but, when captured, they are considered POW’s.
A uniformed soldier on the front line is a “combatant”. A Sunni terrorist in civilian clothes machine gunning the shippers at a Shiite mosque is a “combatant”. Osama bin Ladin planning terrorist attacks from his sick bed while hooked up to a dialysis machine is a “combatant”. A terrorist planning terrorist attacks from his apartment in Madrid or in Macedonia is a “combatant”.
The difference is that the military law classifies the uniformed soldier as a “legal combatant” and classifies the latter three as “illegal combatants”.
Only “legal combatants”, as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention are entitled to belligerent rights which include the privilege of POW status.
According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, should there be a question about whether or not a captured combatant is an illegal combatant, " such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".
According to Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention, those tribunals are Military Courts:
Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention: "A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, ......"
At Guantanamo, individuals who, allegedly, do not meet the legal criteria for classification as “legal combatants” under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention are being judge by Military Tribunals as specifically required by Article 5 and Article 84 of the Geneva Convention.
So, except for the political slander generated by American liberals and European politicians, what exactly is wrong with Guantanamo?
I guess that this isn't the way one would go about mending fences with the US.......to bad......Maybe we could let them have the terrorist and they can house them in one of the bases we vacate.....
I agree, we can shut the prison right after we line up everyone in it and shoot them in a firing squad.
And thankfully you´re not a German, so you really have no say in what the Chancellor should address in her meeting with President Bush.
That's all we have to go on, her words.
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=definition+combatant&meta=lr%3Dlang_de%7Clang_en
See the different definitions. There´s a terminology salad, right. Terrorists can be lawful/legal combatants, but mostly they´re illegal combatants (=non-combatants in the sense that they´re protected). I wouldn´t say that Bin Laden were a combatant ordering attacks from his bed. AQ isn´t an "armed force" - rather a terrorist organization. And what´s the "enemy combatant" (Pentagon)??
Have inmates in Gitmo the status POW? As far as I know, no.
The criticism is, as you know, about the lack of trials and transparency. So, Merkel is quite right when she has that Gitmo cannot exist "in the longer term".
Yes, I thank God everyday that my forebearers left Germany. It was the greatest decision they ever made in their lives
BuHuHaHa! Obviously we are important enough that the opinion of Mrs. Merkel impresses some of your compatriots that much that they are boiling in anger.
You are defensive about your Merkel. That is understandable. Do you understand the chip on American shoulders resulting from 9/11 cowardly attack? Do you understand that the GITMO prisoners would undertake another such attack in a heartbeat? While no, we do not have any say on what Merkel should address - we can certainly offer up our opinion. And my opinion is that she/Germany needs us/USA more than we need them and she should have thought twice before making that statement. No longer can you talk out of both sides of your mouth in this technology advanced media and not expect it to be heard around the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.