posted
ICRC seeks access to all terror suspects held by U.S.
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA (Reuters) - The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called on Thursday for access to all foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States after a report of a covert CIA prison system for al Qaeda captives.
The Washington Post said on Wednesday that the CIA was hiding and interrogating inmates at a secret facility in Eastern Europe, among so-called "black sites" in eight countries under a global network set up after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
"We are concerned at the fate of an unknown number of people captured as part of the so-called global war on terror and held at undisclosed places of detention," Antonella Notari, chief ICRC spokeswoman, told Reuters in response to a question.
"Access to detainees is an important humanitarian priority for the ICRC and a logical continuation of our current work in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay," she added.
Poland and Romania, close U.S. allies in ex-communist central Europe, on Thursday denied suggestions by the New York-based Human Rights Watch that they were among countries hosting secret Central Intelligence Agency detention centres.
"There are no CIA bases in Romania," Romanian Prime Minister Calin Tariceanu told reporters.
Former Polish defence minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski also denied the report as did a senior security official from the new government which took over on Monday.
"Holding foreign nationals on Polish territory would be illegal," the official told Reuters. "I don't think any Polish government would want to do that," he said, adding that a government statement would follow later on Thursday.
Szmajdzinski ruled out any detention of such suspects in Poland. "We aren't detaining terrorists, or interrogating them, or doing anything else with them," he told private Radio Zet.
Carroll Bogert, associate director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said earlier in New York the group had indications Poland and Romania were among countries hosting the alleged CIA prisons.
FLIGHT LOGS
She said the group based its assumption on flight logs, such as a Boeing 737 having made trips to eastern Europe from Afghanistan and countries in the Middle East.
One flight log showed that a plane went from Kabul to northeastern Poland on September 22, 2003. That was the same month that "we know several CIA prisoners who were held in Afghanistan were transferred out of Afghanistan and the next day the same plane landed at a military airport in Romania," Bogert said.
The Romanian airfield had been closed to the public and the media for some time, she added.
The Washington Post said it had not published the names of the European countries at the request of senior U.S. officials who said disclosure could disrupt counterterrorism efforts or make the host countries targets for retaliation.
U.S. officials declined direct comment on the report, which was likely to stir up fresh criticism of the Bush administration's treatment of terrorism suspects.
Russia's FSB security service and Bulgaria's foreign ministry both denied such facilities existed on their territory as did Thailand, which was named in the Washington Post report.
The ICRC's Notari said the organisation had pressed the United States for several years to provide formal notification of all foreign people held as well as access to them.
ICRC officials, including doctors, regularly visit the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where some of the roughly 505 foreign terrorism suspects held are believed to be carrying out a hunger strike begun in early August.
"We are continuing our visits to Guantanamo Bay and monitoring of the situation. Our team was there last week," Notari said, declining to give details.
The Swiss-based neutral humanitarian organisation monitors whether prison conditions and treatment of detainees comply with the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which lay down rules for treating those captured in international armed conflicts.
Inmate abuse by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison was strongly condemned in the Muslim world and among U.S. allies, while human rights groups regularly denounce the holding of suspects for years without charge at Guantanamo Bay.
(Additional reporting by Adam Jasser in Warsaw and Martin Dokoupil in Bucharest)
posted
What's embarassing about it? IMO this story is a waste of print.
The post says it's got info about secret facilities where prisoners are held, but they won't name the countries because some senior U.S. officials ask them not to. Since when does The Post care about what they're asked not to print?
"She said the group based its assumption on flight logs, such as a Boeing 737 having made trips to eastern Europe from Afghanistan and countries in the Middle East."
Assumption? This is kind-of a big deal to be making assumptions.
This story should have read: Red Cross wants access to all detainees. We think there's more in undiclosed locations, but we're not sure. It's important to us that we're able to reach all detainies.
Posts: 722 | From: Richmond, Va , USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Red Cross had access to all the detainees, POW and otherwise, held by the Nazis in WW2.
You don't think they should be allowed access to ours?
Who's your daddy!
quote:Originally posted by Ramius: This story should have read: Red Cross wants access to all detainees. We think there's more in undiclosed locations, but we're not sure. It's important to us that we're able to reach all detainies.
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: The Red Cross had access to all the detainees, POW and otherwise, held by the Nazis in WW2.
You don't think they should be allowed access to ours?
Who's your daddy!
quote:Originally posted by Ramius: This story should have read: Red Cross wants access to all detainees. We think there's more in undiclosed locations, but we're not sure. It's important to us that we're able to reach all detainies.
What I'm saying is this story contains more BS than fact.
Like the last paragraph in the story has anything to do with the Red Cross wanting access to detainees.
Posts: 722 | From: Richmond, Va , USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It explains precisely why they must have access. You call that B.S.?
Again, who's your daddy!
"Inmate abuse by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison was strongly condemned in the Muslim world and among U.S. allies, while human rights groups regularly denounce the holding of suspects for years without charge at Guantanamo Bay."
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since it is impossible for you to "know" if it is or is not BS (unless you do indeed know it isn't BS and you are setting up a smoke screen), your declaration of it to be BS is BS.........ignorant and opinionated BS.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the Fed will just give the Red Cross unfettered access to all detainees, the truth will be known.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Fed has no obligation to open any detainee center to the Red Cross. The detainees are not Prisoners of War subject to the Geneva Conventions. They are criminals.
Below is the link to the entire POW Geneva Convention section and Article 4 from the convention that deals with the classification of POW's.
Geneva Convention Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War:
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.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Since it is impossible for you to "know" if it is or is not BS (unless you do indeed know it isn't BS and you are setting up a smoke screen), your declaration of it to be BS is BS.........ignorant and opinionated BS.
Do you like reading news based on assumptions? That's what this article is...it even says so in it. I'm not setting up the smoke screen, I'm seeing through someone elses.
Posts: 722 | From: Richmond, Va , USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they are "criminals" when was their trial?
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: The Fed has no obligation to open any detainee center to the Red Cross. The detainees are not Prisoners of War subject to the Geneva Conventions. They are criminals.
posted
No trial has no bearing on Red Cross access.
The terrorist detainees are not prisoners of war, they fall into protected persons status. They have no right to trial. They can however be detained or executed for serious offenses.
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War , 12 August 1949.
Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
To make it simple so you might have a chance, while conducting war, the US says they captured these guys opposing them. They are prisoners captured while and because a war was being conducted.
They are not spies and the US has never claimed any of them to be spies, just persons captures in a war zone. Those provisions of the Geneva convention that dscribe military "attire" relate to and are specific to spies.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
They are not prisoners of war, read the convention definition of what is and is not a prisoner of war. They do not meet the definition. That is pretty simple. The portions of the convention which I have listed have nothing to do with the actions related to spies. They list the requirements of prisoner of war status and protected persons status.
**********
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.
No, not part of the armed forces or 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.
Some can be considered militias other than those forming part of the armed forces, yet they do not meet any of the four conditions for being considered prisoners of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
No, they are civilians
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.
No, they are not civilian military workers.
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.
No, they are not crews.
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.
No, the entire country is occupied, they neither carry arms openly or respect the laws and customs of war.
They are civilians caught in offences intended to harm the occupying power. Thus they have no right to visits by the Red Cross, they have no right to trial. They are subject to military tribunal and may be kept or turned over to civilian courts of the occupied nation at the discretion of the military tribunal. For severe offences, they may also be executed.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
