I'm getting tired of this argument particularly the niggling legalistic arguments you're making. You present your overbroad interpretations as facts.
I think the Geneva conventions on POW's were intended to cover soldiers in actual wars between countries, not people like terrorists or pirates. The important provisions which make POW status improper for terrorists are the "name, rank, and serial number" language and the requirement that POW's be repatriated when the conflict ends. These provisions would prevent interrogations of captured terrorists and require us to release people who are very likely to kill Americans.
I think the Geneva convention should not cover such people and I think it doesn't if properly interpreted. However, if my interpretation is wrong, then the Geneva conventions should be scrappped! No international treaty is worth endangering the country and its people.
I'm quite satisfied that the vast majority of the detainees are Al Qaeda. First, there are only a thousand or so of them. The vast majority were detained in Afghanistan and the vast majority are known to be non-Afghans. Saudis are the largest group of detainees. Now what would non-Afghans be doing in Afghanistan during 2002? Just sight-seeing? Unlikely to say the least. Reason tells you that they were there to receive Al Qaeda training and assist Al Qaeda in its hostilities against America.
I'd like you answer a question. Do you want the detainees released or not? That really is THE important issue in the POW.
I am extremely confidant that none of them will be released until they have been determined (by American government military and security officials) that they are not a danger to the country. And that's exactly the way it should be.
It isn't a matter of the Bush administration's policy. No matter who is elected next November, no administration no matter how liberal will ever dare to release dangerous or even potentially dangerous terrorists. This would be political suicide.
The fact that the US has released a bunch of detainees ought to demonstrate that the US isn't trying to hold innocent persons
Good. You are beginning to see that not all Guantanamo detainees are Al-Qaeda.
Of course, though I'm sure most are. Now you should begin to see the US government has been and is trying to identify the innocent and release them. If that weren't the case, none would have been released.
Treatment of the detainees as POW's would hamper investigation
That's too bad. But the Geneva Convention is quite clear.
Now we come to a serious issue. American security is secondary to international institutions and treaties to you. It is the opposite to me and to most Americans. I am more than willing to scrap the Geneva convention and any and every other international treaty if they get in the way of our nation's security. I would expect, no DEMAND, that any American president take the same position. The American government answers to the American people, not to other countries or to international institutions.
They are human beings, after all, some of whom is probably quite innocent and does not deserve to be there for one minute, let alone a lifetime. They need to have a chance to make their case.
Then they should make their case to their captors. The fact that some have been released shows that the American captors are willing to listen and release the innocent.
|
