What does impeachment solve?

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Booko,

The Supreme Court said we aren't.

And no, prisoners in Gitmo are not being treated according to those "quaint" Geneva Conventions. That's why they are "enemy combatants" and not "prisoners of war."

Very good, but I was referring to Penguin's point:

1. Prisoners of war - legitimate enemy soldiers. These prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions, held in conditions as close in comfort as possible to their captor's own soldiers, and returned to their own country upon cessation of hostilities.

It seems to me that we are doing that with the prisoners at Gitmo.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. Prisoners of war - legitimate enemy soldiers. These prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions, held in conditions as close in comfort as possible to their captor's own soldiers, and returned to their own country upon cessation of hostilities.

It seems to me that we are doing that with the prisoners at Gitmo.

The original war (wars, actually) is over. There was even a banner to that effect that Bush stood in front of. Democratically elected leaders hold power in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The prisoners collected from both countries are still imprisoned.

In any case, the prisoners were never provided the rights mandated for prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions... even if forced sleep deprivation, being threatened by dogs and being subjected to extremes of temperature (to mention only a few things that have come out about what goes on at Gitmo) are "all in a day's work" for an average American grunt working on base.

 

[lilithu]

Will impeaching them somehow stop the war, bring the troops home, and solve every other problem? Does it just serve to send a message and take frustration out on someone?

I wouldn't undervalue the power of symbolism.

Impeachment in and of itself will not solve any of the problems that you list, but it sends a message that people will be held accountable for their actions. Otoh, if Bush and Cheney are not impeached, it sends the message that no matter what you do you can get away with it. Impeachment could do much to restore people's faith in our government, whereas right now you have people on all ends of the spectrum saying that they don't trust govt because all politicians are crooked and there are no repercussions.

I also see things getting progressively worse as administrations go unchecked. From Nixon's Watergate to Reagan's Iran Contra to Bush's Haliburton and other private contractors who are making vast fortunes off the war. (And no, I truly do not believe that lying, even under oath, over a blow job is on the same level as these other offenses.)

I believe in justice, not retribution. I think that both Bush and Cheney should be impeached. That said, it's not something that I'm out there actively advocating for because I have no faith that the Dems wouldn't just turn this into partisan politicking.

 

[Booko]

Hi Booko,

Hi Joe,

Have a nice day.

 

[anders]

An impeachment might lead some people in other countries to believe that some USAmericans really think that their Constitution and international treatises signed by the US are worth more that the electrons used to store them.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

The original war (wars, actually) is over. There was even a banner to that effect that Bush stood in front of. Democratically elected leaders hold power in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The prisoners collected from both countries are still imprisoned.

This argument could work for Taliban-only prisoners and Iraq-only prisoners. But I would guess (and this is a guess because I really don't know) that the majority of the prisoners do not fit into that category.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This argument could work for Taliban-only prisoners and Iraq-only prisoners. But I would guess (and this is a guess because I really don't know) that the majority of the prisoners do not fit into that category.

I agree.

They would fit into the category of "criminals", and be afforded the right to a fair and speedy trial, and to counsel.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

I agree.

They would fit into the category of "criminals", and be afforded the right to a fair and speedy trial, and to counsel.

Where were these 'criminals' found? It looks like on a battlefield. So, we have people fighting like a soldier of an enemy of the United States, but they aren't affiliated with a specific country. I would think that makes then prisoners of war.

 

[Mister_T]

Liberals don't like the policies of Bush and some other Republicans so they are criminals and they must be removed from office.

A vast number of Republicans don't like Bush & Cheny nor their policies. Your claim that this is just a Liberal persecution of Republicans is baseless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where were these 'criminals' found? It looks like on a battlefield. So, we have people fighting like a soldier of an enemy of the United States, but they aren't affiliated with a specific country. I would think that makes then prisoners of war.

Hang on... who exactly are you talking about here?

And people who aren't soldiers of a particular country but who engage in some sort of offensive activity are either criminals (if the offensive activity was illegal) or nothing (if it wasn't). Criminals get the right to a speedy trial, non-criminals get the right not to be detained in the first place.

Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.

 

[doppelganger]

There's no such thing as impeachable offenses. Every perception that someone has committed a crime is merely partisan political maneuver by either a "liberal" or a "conservative." Thus, there's also no such thing as a valid impeachment.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mister T,

A vast number of Republicans don't like Bush & Cheny nor their policies. Your claim that this is just a Liberal persecution of Republicans is baseless.

True, but I would argue that the talk of impeachment comes from crowd that contains a vast majority of liberals. That's fine, but let's be accurate here.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

Hang on... who exactly are you talking about here?

And people who aren't soldiers of a particular country but who engage in some sort of offensive activity are either criminals (if the offensive activity was illegal) or nothing (if it wasn't). Criminals get the right to a speedy trial, non-criminals get the right not to be detained in the first place.

Hold on here. I am talking about people that have an allegience to groups (such as al-Qeada) that have declared war on the United States and then commit actions of warfare against the United States.

I classify those people as prisoners of war.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hold on here. I am talking about people that have an allegience to groups (such as al-Qeada) that have declared war on the United States and then commit actions of warfare against the United States.

I classify those people as prisoners of war.

A prisoner of war is defined by Convention III as follows:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

If a person falls into any of those categories, he or she is a prisoner of war and is afforded the protections of the rest of the Convention. If he or she does not fall into those categories, then he or she is dealt with by the normal justice system.

Just because a group declares that they are "at war" with the United States does not make them prisoners of war. It could be argued that Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kazynski's (sp?) actions were acts of war; they were dealt with as criminals.

Also, I'm not exactly sure what right the United States even has in arresting and detaining people who committed criminal acts in other sovereign countries, even if the acts were against US personnel. If someone murders a US soldier in Japan, for example, it's the Japanese police and courts that deal with the case, not the Americans.

 

[lilithu]

There's no such thing as impeachable offenses. Every perception that someone has committed a crime is merely partisan political maneuver by either a "liberal" or a "conservative." Thus, there's also no such thing as a valid impeachment.

So... if a president were to get caught red-handed selling military secrets for monetary gain to a government or group known to be violently hostile to the U.S., you would not consider that an impeachable offense?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

If a person falls into any of those categories, he or she is a prisoner of war and is afforded the protections of the rest of the Convention. If he or she does not fall into those categories, then he or she is dealt with by the normal justice system.

Okay, thank you for posting that.

I would say that the most of the prisoners at Gitmo fall under number two. And thus, they would be prisoners of war.

 

[doppelganger]

So... if a president were to get caught red-handed selling military secrets for monetary gain to a government or group known to be violently hostile to the U.S., you would not consider that an impeachable offense?

What party is he from?

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Penguin,



Where were these 'criminals' found? It looks like on a battlefield. So, we have people fighting like a soldier of an enemy of the United States, but they aren't affiliated with a specific country. I would think that makes then prisoners of war.

Were you aware that only about 5% of the detainees in Cuba were found on the battlefield? Most of the rest were handed over to the US by people seeking a monetary reward for turning in "terrorists". Just how many of those "terrorists" do you think are real terrorists when even our own military claims no more than 8% of the detainees are terrorists?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

Were you aware that only about 5% of the detainees in Cuba were found on the battlefield? Most of the rest were handed over to the US by people seeking a monetary reward for turning in "terrorists". Just how many of those "terrorists" do you think are real terrorists when even our own military claims no more than 8% of the detainees are terrorists?

Well, if we have no evidence that someone in Gitmo is in fact a terrorist, then we should release him. But if the others that weren't captured on the battlefield were still conducting terrorist operations (or planning to) and we knew this (or others knew this), then they still would be prisoners of war in my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, thank you for posting that.

You're welcome.

I would say that the most of the prisoners at Gitmo fall under number two. And thus, they would be prisoners of war.

In that case, ask yourself if the other protections of Convention III have been given to the prisoners at Gitmo:

From Article 13:

Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.
[...]
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

From Article 14:

Art 14. Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.

[...]

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

From Article 17:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

From Article 18:

All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents, shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.

At no time should prisoners of war be without identity documents. The Detaining Power shall supply such documents to prisoners of war who possess none.

Badges of rank and nationality, decorations and articles having above all a personal or sentimental value may not be taken from prisoners of war.

From Article 22:

Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

From Article 25:

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.

The premises provided for the use of prisoners of war individually or collectively, shall be entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted, in particular between dusk and lights out. All precautions must be taken against the danger of fire.

From Article 28:

Canteens shall be installed in all camps, where prisoners of war may procure foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use. The tariff shall never be in excess of local market prices.

The profits made by camp canteens shall be used for the benefit of the prisoners; a special fund shall be created for this purpose. The prisoners' representative shall have the right to collaborate in the management of the canteen and of this fund.

From Article 38:

While respecting the individual preferences of every prisoner, the Detaining Power shall encourage the practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners, and shall take the measures necessary to ensure the exercise thereof by providing them with adequate premises and necessary equipment.

Prisoners shall have opportunities for taking physical exercise, including sports and games, and for being out of doors. Sufficient open spaces shall be provided for this purpose in all camps.

From Article 87:

Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

From Article 118:

Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.