US Occupation jails AP photographer for 5 months and refuses to charge him - Page 4

kinggovernor · 09-18-2006, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He was a photographer for the AP, nice try though.

that is his side of the story, the US military believes otherwise. And they win in this case

Ardentfrost · 09-18-2006, 09:28 PM

Lemme help you out

If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

Even if he were accused and convicted via a non-public military court, I'd be cooler with this. But without ANY accusation or anything, it's just them locking up some non-combatant (possible) civilian for no reason.

Thorgrim · 09-18-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is his side of the story, the US military believes otherwise. And they win in this case

It's the AP's side of the story

The US military is merely speculating, I am sure their legal detention staff has no idea what to do with them and thousands are simply lost in the cracks

nbiggershaft · 09-18-2006, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they don't meet the legal definition of POWs and they are going to go home someday

If not a POW, why not atleast as a criminal? If not a criminal to the U.S. why not a criminal in Iraq? Surely, if we are so sure these people have done something wrong they have to fall in somewhere. We preach checks and balances, but there are none here, just absolute power. Grey areas breed corruption and abuse of power.

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Lemme help you out

Even if he were accused and convicted via a non-public military court, I'd be cooler with this. But without ANY accusation or anything, it's just them locking up some non-combatant (possible) civilian for no reason.

there is no doubt about it, civilians don't associate themselves with those attacking american/iraqi forces

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's the AP's side of the story

The US military is merely speculating, I am sure their legal detention staff has no idea what to do with them and thousands are simply lost in the cracks

and the AP is speculating that he wasn't helping out the insurgents. They have a great idea to do with these people, take them in custody and put them into jail until they come up with something better

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

If not a POW, why not atleast as a criminal? If not a criminal to the U.S. why not a criminal in Iraq? Surely, if we are so sure these people have done something wrong they have to fall in somewhere. We preach checks and balances, but there are none here, just absolute power. Grey areas breed corruption and abuse of power.

Iraq has no bill of rights, nothing.

Scrum · 09-19-2006, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Iraq has no bill of rights, nothing.

SO then thay have no laws?

Ardentfrost · 09-19-2006, 01:33 AM

I have no idea why TKG is against the US gov't charging the detainee with something before detaining.

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

SO then thay have no laws?

they have a court system but it is in a rudimentary state. When we detained someone for more than a few hours we needed to have physical evidence like the weapons their were using with pictures of them standing next to it. But the idea that they have a bill of rights as of right now is false

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I have no idea why TKG is against the US gov't charging the detainee with something before detaining.

under what structure of laws?

Ardentfrost · 09-19-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

under what structure of laws?

There are laws there dude. I don't know why you think there aren't. The sets of laws include Geneva Conventions and local penal code (which the GC says must be followed for non-military/occupation/war-related crime). They can charge him with being an insurgant or aiding an insurgancy force and then give him same treatment as others which is outlined in the GC.

But instead, they offer no reason behind detaining him. They just do.

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

There are laws there dude. I don't know why you think there aren't. The sets of laws include Geneva Conventions and local penal code (which the GC says must be followed for non-military/occupation/war-related crime). They can charge him with being an insurgant or aiding an insurgancy force and then give him same treatment as others which is outlined in the GC.

But instead, they offer no reason behind detaining him. They just do.

we have yet to transfer control off detainees to the Iraqi government. The geneva convetion states that we can hold him for the duration if we want to

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 09:54 AM

anyone have a link for the Iraqi penal code?

Ardentfrost · 09-19-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we have yet to transfer control off detainees to the Iraqi government. The geneva convetion states that we can hold him for the duration if we want to

You're still basing your assumptions on him not being a civilian, which the US gov't/military has yet to even allocute, therefore he is still a citizen.

Hence, he can be imprisoned only if accused of doing something against the occupying force (which is us). If accused AND CONVICTED, he can only be sentenced for 2 years by the occupying force, otherwise an agreement must be reached with his "Protecting Power" (ie. the occupied country).

This is from Conventions 4 article 68 and 71. Let me even quote some of this...

Originally Posted by Convention 4 Article 71 Paragraph 1 and 2

Art. 71. No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial.

Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. The Protecting Power shall be informed of all proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons in respect of charges involving the death penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons.

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You're still basing your assumptions on him not being a civilian, which the US gov't/military has yet to even allocute, therefore he is still a citizen.

Hence, he can be imprisoned only if accused of doing something against the occupying force (which is us). If accused AND CONVICTED, he can only be sentenced for 2 years by the occupying force, otherwise an agreement must be reached with his "Protecting Power" (ie. the occupied country).

This is from Conventions 4 article 68 and 71. Let me even quote some of this...

and you are basing your assumption on the fact that he isn't an insurgent, lets take a guess who wins in this bet.

Ardentfrost · 09-19-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

and you are basing your assumption on the fact that he isn't an insurgent, lets take a guess who wins in this bet.

GC sides with me, as I've said. Without a charge of terrorism or violence, he must be assumed to be a civilian through Protocol 1 Article 50 Section 1.

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

GC sides with me, as I've said. Without a charge of terrorism or violence, he must be assumed to be a civilian through Protocol 1 Article 50 Section 1.

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms.

The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces," according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq.

Ardentfrost · 09-19-2006, 04:11 PM

Sweet, charge him and this whole thing will be moot. Then he's able to be imprisoned for the duration of the occupancy or 2 years, whichever comes first.

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Sweet, charge him and this whole thing will be moot. Then he's able to be imprisoned for the duration of the occupancy or 2 years, whichever comes first.

so I did some googling and this was the best I could find:
\ Central Criminal Court of Iraq