In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:26:33 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

OK, how long, then?

A day?

A week?

A month?

A year?

2 years?

3 years?

5 years?

Perhaps the following excerpt from the opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld may be
enlightening:

" The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture,
detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and
practice," are "important incident[s] of war." Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S.,
at 28. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from
returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. Naqvi,
Doubtful Prisoner-of-War Status, 84 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 571, 572 (2002)
("[C]aptivity in war is 'neither revenge, nor punishment, but solely
protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of
war from further participation in the war' " (quoting decision of Nuremberg
Military Tribunal, reprinted in 41 Am. J. Int'l L. 172, 229 (1947)); W.
Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 788 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) ("The time has
long passed when 'no quarter' was the rule on the battlefield ... . It is
now recognized that 'Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of
vengeance,' but 'merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal
character.' ... 'A prisoner of war is no convict; his imprisonment is a
simple war measure.' " (citations omitted); cf. In re Territo, 156 F. 2d
142, 145 (CA9 1946) ("The object of capture is to prevent the captured
individual from serving the enemy. He is disarmed and from then on must be
removed as completely as practicable from the front, treated humanely, and
in time exchanged, repatriated, or otherwise released" (footnotes
omitted))."

............ except as you have admitted, these people aren't prisoners
of war and therefore none of the above is relevant.


And later in the opinion:

"Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in
Afghanistan. See, e.g., Constable, U. S. Launches New Operation in
Afghanistan, Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2004, p. A22 (reporting that 13,500
United States troops remain in Afghanistan, including several thousand new
arrivals); J. Abizaid, Dept. of Defense, Gen. Abizaid Central Command
Operations Update Briefing, Apr. 30, 2004,
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0430-1402.html (as visited
June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media
briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000
United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of
these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban
combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If
the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in
active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of
"necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the
AUMF."

Ah. So there isn't a new Govt controlling Afghanistan, then? It's still
in the control of the Taliban as a political and military force?

Not.

PDW

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0430-1402.html (as visited
June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media
briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000
United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of
these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban
combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If
the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in
active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of
"necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the
AUMF."


Peter Wiley wrote:
Ah. So there isn't a new Govt controlling Afghanistan, then? It's still
in the control of the Taliban as a political and military force?

Not.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an armed conflict going
on. In fact, the legal blah-blah Dave cited does make some sense and
could cover the case for prisoners from Afghanistan.

The problem is, it's *still* not what the U.S. gov't is doing with
regard to the Gitmo detainees, nor the 'War On Terror' in general.

DSK

In article , DSK
wrote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0430-1402.html (as visited
June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media
briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000
United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of
these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban
combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If
the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in
active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of
"necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the
AUMF."


Peter Wiley wrote:
Ah. So there isn't a new Govt controlling Afghanistan, then? It's still
in the control of the Taliban as a political and military force?

Not.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an armed conflict going
on. In fact, the legal blah-blah Dave cited does make some sense and
could cover the case for prisoners from Afghanistan.

The problem is, it's *still* not what the U.S. gov't is doing with
regard to the Gitmo detainees, nor the 'War On Terror' in general.

The problem is, depending on how you define it, there's an armed
conflict going on in so many different places that you could detain
probably 75% of the planet's population.

Look at the USA and various nutcase militia examples. Is this an
example of an armed conflict?

I don't, as I've said, have any problem with dealing summarily with
people caught under arms, sans uniform, on the field of battle, or
shooting people in cities who are actively trying to shoot you.
However, if they're captured, they're then entitled to a trial.

Face it, the Gitmo people have been locked up away from legal advice
and subjected to psy abuse for years now. How long did it take to deal
with the Japanese and Germans after WW2 finished?

From
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../nurembergACCO
UNT.html

Twelve trials, involving over a hundred defendants and several
different courts, took place in Nuremberg from 1945 to 1949.* By far
the most attention--not surprisingly, given the figures involved--has
focused on the first Nuremberg trial of twenty-one major war
criminals.* Several of the eleven subsequent Nuremberg trials, however,
involved conduct no less troubling--and issues at least as
interesting--as the Major War Criminals Trial.* For example, the trial
of sixteen German judges and officials of the Reich Ministry (The
Justice Trial) considered the criminal responsibility of judges who
enforce immoral laws.* (The Justice Trial became the inspiration for
the acclaimed Hollywood movie, Judgment at Nuremberg.)* Other
subsequent trials, such as the Doctors Trial and the Einsatzgruppen
Trial, are especially compelling because of the horrific events
described by prosecution witnesses.* (These three subsequent trials
each receive separate coverage elsewhere in this website.)

You guys haven't even managed to bring ONE person to trial as yet. One
strongly suspects this is because, unlike the Nuremberg trials, there
*is* nothing to charge these people with. In which case, it's an act of
an arbitrary and untrustworthy Govt and as such deserves to be
condemned out of hand, lest someone else closer to home goes the same
way.

People like Dave & Vito would have given the Amistad slaves over to the
Spanish.

PDW