'Terrorist attack' in Woolwich

Ah. The Our Boys™ line. Always a winner.

I'm clearly not at international lawyer however my understanding is that the UN mandate only allows detention for 96 hours. Beyond that detention can only be in exceptional circumstances for intelligence gathering (aka interrogation). The government admit that any interrogation stopped in some cases months ago but that they can't release them because of a prior legal case in November which ruled the Afghan prison system to be subjecting people we'd released into their custody to torture. As I say they could have set up an internment system with legal backing here but can't be arsed. It's not about having to admit something is illegal - it's trying to wang it rather than do it properly. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Dave and the senior civil servants had to pay the legal fees themselves to defend this case rather than the taxpayer they'd not bother. They've lost a number of court cases in recent years while all the time claiming they were acting legally. That's what this government does.

Your point about Labour voting against the Conservatives isn't really founded. Ed Millibroon is quite the consensus builder when it suits his naive politicking and I'm sure anything involving protecting Our Boys™ would be considered perfect material for him to prove what a statesman he wants to be.

Of course the simplest solution would just be to come home. That way more of Our Boys™ can be made redundant as per the government's crazy master plan.

 

Time and again the BBC is found to be the most trusted news source in the UK when the public is polled, despite it's difficulties getting such microscopic attention. Surely the outlier in this regard is you?

 

So do you think they should be released then?

These prisoners are obviously a big headache. They must be dangerous otherwise the issue would be over as they old have been released ages ago.

I'm not sure about cross party consensus in getting a law changed, I think it might fail. We've just had to reduce detention in this country because of pressure from the usual sources.

 

That's why they are so wrong. It is the classic situation where a trusted body or person takes advantage of that trust to push an agenda. But in this case, they are using tax payers money to do it.

 

No, I'd love for them to continue to be detained because I have every faith that the vast majority are where they are because they are violent extremists who pose a threat to our armed forces. I would however also like us to have a competent government who act in line with the law. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. Too much is being done at the moment on a wing and a prayer. How many times have the High Court sent this government back to the drawing board on their ideological schemes because they've not thought them through or consulted enough?

What does the bit in bold refer to?

 

Cos it's a cat innit.

 

Does Habeas Corpus mean nothing anymore? If they're enemy combatants then detain them as POWs. We would completely have the right to do so in that case. If they're terrorist civilians (which my undersanding is the case, correct me if I'm wrong) then you need evidence, and a trial. You can't just detain suspicious people indefinitely because they're "probably" guilty. It totally undermines due process

 

I dont think it is as simple as that.

First of all there has been a distinction between Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. The former, I believe, are deemed to be criminals, whereas the latter are deemed to be POW's.

If they are criminals, then they can be charged with offences such as murder, etc, and they then go through the legal process including courts, etc.

But POW's can't be charged with offences relating to fighting a war, with the exception of war crimes. That is why the IRA were so keen on being declared POW's rather than criminals. However POW's, should be re-patriated as soon as is practicable, at the end of hostilities. It can be argued that the end of hostilities came when the Kaizai government "took over" command, with assistance from the Brits and the US. But this is not clearly defined in International Law. Nevertheless, the UK has been in negotiation with the Kaizai government to hand over the prisoners since last autumn, but as yet, the locals are not capable of receiving them as they are still fighting the Taliban themselves. If they take back the Taliban (who are their sworn enemies), will they be locked up and tortured or released to kill again? Regardless, thus far - it is not yet "practicable" to hand them over, as referred to earlier.

That is my understanding anyway.

 

Not really. Latin's a dead language.

 

So long term, what's the solution? Are we saying the Afghan's won't comply with international law? Is there even a solution available? I honestly don't know what needs to be done, but the situation can't continue as it currently is

 

I'm afraid I'm not too bothered. They've been trying to kill our troops and I couldn't care less how long they get locked up for. I hope it's at least until our troops come home anyway.

Edit. But I suppose the long term solution is for the Taliban to stop murdering their fellow countrymen and women in the name of Islam and not provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda, then the Karzai government won't need us and we can leave sooner.

 

Incorrect - GIRoA have primacy, ISAF is there assisting at their request. The Taliban are criminals and their acts are common criminality. PoW status is not a factor, they're not PoWs, never have been - neither were IRA - that was Sinn Fein propaganda machine.

GIRoA don't have sufficient resilience or experience within their judicial system to deal effectively or appropriately with captured Talibs, similarly when exploit activities have been conducted there are cultural issues defining what constitutes evidence, eg, DNA found on an IED matched to a suspect takes some explaining to tribal elders who still bum young boys and stone wrongdoers - western evidence gathering is seen as "white mans magic" and a deep level of mistrust exists. If we turned detainees over to GIRoA or provincial representatives half would be beheaded and half back on the streets within 24hrs.

Finally, the facilites where detainees are held is very comfortable and assured to UK detention standards - its certainly not an Abu-Grahib or G-Mo type facility - the regulation of the facility is also subject to very strict scrutiny from senior officers.

 

I thought the Taliban ran the country before we helped overthrow them? Surely that would make them an enemy force, rather than criminal civilians?

 

Well I'm certainly no expert on this, but I do know that the Red Cross deem them as POW's, as does the United Nations.

The US treated them as something different, something like "illegal combatants" or something like that, which meant that they were meant to have abided by the Geneva Convention. If the British Taliban were not POW's then they would not be obliged to keep to the Geneva Convention, so do not have to be released at the end of hostilities.

It's confusing, and I think it is not as simple as you say, or was it a hardened opinion rather fact.

Also, yes of course the I know the IRA were not POW's I was just stating why they wanted that status, I didn't say they deserved it.

 

The Taliban were not a legitimate government and couldn't be signatories to the Geneva Convention. In order for combatants to be legally recognised as POWs their government needs to be defined as a "high contracting party" and agree to the laws of war (Jus in bello). The Taliban proceeded to fight an insurgency and became defacto unlawful combatant...i refer to wiki for a better definition:

"An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action; subject of course to international treaties on justice and human rights such as everyones right to a fair trial"

 

I think you have got a bit mixed up. Al Qaeda have no State and therefore cannot sign up to the Geneva Convention, therefore cannot be classed as POW's. Whereas the Taliban in question are Afghans, whose government has signed up. That is why most Authorities accept them as POW's. The US declared them as illegal combatants, against the wishes of the authorities and, incidentally, the UK, who I understand treat them as POW's. What knowledge do you have that I am wrong.

 

Not quite. Some Talibs happen to be Afghani but that doesn't accord them protection or endorsement from the GIRoA; many "taliban" are foreign fighters and are as much an enemy to the people of Afghanistan as they are to the ISAF coalition. GIRoA only signed the GC in 2009, 8 yrs after the Taliban were ousted.

 

I repeat my question, as I am genuinely interested, and you said I was wrong in my earlier answer. Where did you get your information that the prisoners held by the British are civil criminals with no POW status?

 

I've been there

 

Ah I see, thanks for clearing it up

 

Hat's off!

With respect, is your post #257, based on your experiences and obvious personal feelings (which, if you see my earlier posts, I would probably entirely agree with) or your knowledge of the rules/law?

 

Has anyone told America that?

 

That's why there was so much uproar about the patriot act, because it allows the suspension of habeas corpus. Its a disgusting piece of legislation.