POWS and Rights
The talk show hosts say a lot - they have airtime to fill - and yet never summarize down the base problems on prisoners caught on battlefields that are not in an officially reconized military formation.
During WW II the NAZI party, not one often to deal humanely with prisoners, granted POW status to the Polish Home Army personnel captured in the 1944 Warsaw uprising (The Communists later killed a lot of them when they returned to Poland.) Partisans captured, if in large numbers, were usually shipped off to concentration camps. Individual captures were random: if no German had been killed they were usually shipped off, if some Germans were killed then they they might be shot on site depending on the commander there. This meant the partisans usually fought to the death alone since their likelyhood of living was low.
Rights of enemy combatants is defined by treaties and the culture of the capturing army. As a foreign person you have NO natural rights to any legal status in the country you are fighting against like a citizen of that country has. Only rights you have are those that captured country has reconized through international multiple-country treaties or directly to the country you are from.
As such, many US laws are always said shold be granted to all foreigners which is wrong. They are NOT citizens of the US. The same is true of US Citizens who commit crimes abroad - many laws that we have do NOT exist elsewjhere, how can US impose OUR laws onto them when it comes to our citizens if we do NOT then impose THEIR laws on their citizens who commit a crime here? If that was true then we would have to use THEIR laws when trying their citizens. That does not work.
Laws on the books are for CITIZENS of that country - anyone captured in combat is NOT a citizen of your country, and if not wearing a reconized uniform or symbol (The Polish Home Army wore armbands so they could be identified as being a "uniformed" combatant) have no rights to POW status at all since they are NOT uniformed soldiers.
The people held by the US fall outside POW status - they are like the Partisans of WW II - and thus have NO rights at all under treaties for POWs. They are classified as terrorists and saboteurs and thus can be shot when captured. We did that to the Germans who landed in the US in WWII (the US Supreme court ruled that the military has juristiction and did not grant them US citizen rights to US courts so they hung 6 of the 7 - the 7th turned himself and the others in and was almost hung anyway!)
The people in Guantamo fall under US military courts, are not soldiers in the Geneva convention sense, and thus never have the same rights as true soliders on the battlefield and due to the WWII supreme court ruling belong in the military court.
During WW II the NAZI party, not one often to deal humanely with prisoners, granted POW status to the Polish Home Army personnel captured in the 1944 Warsaw uprising (The Communists later killed a lot of them when they returned to Poland.) Partisans captured, if in large numbers, were usually shipped off to concentration camps. Individual captures were random: if no German had been killed they were usually shipped off, if some Germans were killed then they they might be shot on site depending on the commander there. This meant the partisans usually fought to the death alone since their likelyhood of living was low.
Rights of enemy combatants is defined by treaties and the culture of the capturing army. As a foreign person you have NO natural rights to any legal status in the country you are fighting against like a citizen of that country has. Only rights you have are those that captured country has reconized through international multiple-country treaties or directly to the country you are from.
As such, many US laws are always said shold be granted to all foreigners which is wrong. They are NOT citizens of the US. The same is true of US Citizens who commit crimes abroad - many laws that we have do NOT exist elsewjhere, how can US impose OUR laws onto them when it comes to our citizens if we do NOT then impose THEIR laws on their citizens who commit a crime here? If that was true then we would have to use THEIR laws when trying their citizens. That does not work.
Laws on the books are for CITIZENS of that country - anyone captured in combat is NOT a citizen of your country, and if not wearing a reconized uniform or symbol (The Polish Home Army wore armbands so they could be identified as being a "uniformed" combatant) have no rights to POW status at all since they are NOT uniformed soldiers.
The people held by the US fall outside POW status - they are like the Partisans of WW II - and thus have NO rights at all under treaties for POWs. They are classified as terrorists and saboteurs and thus can be shot when captured. We did that to the Germans who landed in the US in WWII (the US Supreme court ruled that the military has juristiction and did not grant them US citizen rights to US courts so they hung 6 of the 7 - the 7th turned himself and the others in and was almost hung anyway!)
The people in Guantamo fall under US military courts, are not soldiers in the Geneva convention sense, and thus never have the same rights as true soliders on the battlefield and due to the WWII supreme court ruling belong in the military court.
posted by Tom Philo at 9:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home