USA holding children at Guantanamo Bay

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Nice to see that grand old tradition of the USA, respecting human rights, in action again…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/

Children younger than 16 are being held as “enemy combatants” in the American detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, the US military admitted yesterday, a practice human rights groups condemned as repugnant and illegal.
Three boys aged between 13 and 15 are among about 660 inmates at the controversial camp, a US military official told the Guardian, on condition of anonymity. The official would not disclose their nationalities but said they had been brought from Afghanistan this year on suspicion of terrorism.

As soon as their ages were confirmed in medical tests, the children were moved to a “dedicated juvenile facility” at the camp, where they could socialise with each other, according to Lieutenant Corporal Barry Johnson, a spokesman at the base.

“They are in a secure environment free from the influences of older detainees,” Lt Cpl Johnson said. “They are receiving specialist mental health care, in recognition of the difficult circumstances that child combatants go through, and some basic education in terms of reading and writing.” Efforts were under way to contact their home nations, he added.

But the children would still be held indefinitely and would not be granted access to lawyers, he said, because the US continues to view them as “enemy combatants” - a term it has used to argue that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the inmates, who have not been charged with any crimes.

That would be the case “until we ensure that they’re no longer a threat to the United States, that there’s no pending law enforcement against them, that they’re no longer of intelligence value,” Lt Cpl Johnson said.

Holding the children was “wholly repugnant and contrary to basic principles of human rights,” said Angela Wright of Amnesty International, and contravened UN rules with “near-universal acceptance” regarding the treatment of juveniles.

The United States and Somalia are the only member states of the United Nations no to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the US is a signatory, and thus has “an obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty,” Ms Wright said. “This is clearly totally at odds with the purpose of the treaty.”

The precise legal ramifications are unclear, since many experts argue that the US is already in breach of international law by holding any of the detainees indefinitely without trial or charge, regardless of their ages.

Guantanamo Bay has attracted the condemnation of human rights campaigners since the first detainees arrived at what was Camp X-Ray, in January 2002. Soon after, they were pictured cowed, blindfolded and bound in the intense Cuban heat.

Since then, the US has built Camp Delta, a permanent and better-equipped facility, and has been at pains to describe how the inmates’ religious and cultural preferences are being catered for. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross are in regular contact with the inmates.

But reports of hunger strikes and attempted suicides have continued to emerge from the base. Military officials have confirmed 25 suicide attempts by 17 people since the inception of the camp, with 15 this year, often by inmates attempting to strangle themselves.

One detainee who reportedly fell into a coma after trying to hang himself was back off life support this week, Lt Cpl Johnson said, but there was no word on what the authorities would do with him next. The Pentagon has published regulations for how the inmates, who come from 42 countries, might be tried by military tribunals, but has not yet nominated any of them for trial.

The US court of appeals ruled last month that the government was entitled to deny due legal process to the detainees because they are not Americans and are not being held on US territory.

The three boys are not the only inmates under 16 to have been brought to Guantanamo Bay. Canadian officials have been seeking for months to gain access to Omar al-Khadr, a Canadian national who they say is being held at Camp Delta after being captured on July 27 during fighting in eastern Afghanistan. He was 15 at the time, they said.

2

oh my God…:eek:

3

…and if these “children” are in fact “combatants”, what do you propose be done with them.give them back their toys http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2623371, slap their wrist and send them home to mommy and daddy?

link was moved http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2623371

4

Your link is not working…

5

HOW DARE THEM, they moved it.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2623371

6

Freedom and Justice for all??
I guess justice is only for Americans
Yet another example of Americans applying there moral standards as they please.
Holding a 13 year old kid in a metal cage outside with a hood on his head,,,,,
Sounds like something Saddam Hussein would do

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elahi: *
Freedom and Justice for all??
I guess justice is only for Americans
Yet another example of Americans applying there moral standards as they please.
Holding a 13 year old kid in a metal cage outside with a hood on his head,,,,,
Sounds like something Saddam Hussein would do
[/QUOTE]

moral standards? why do you assume the "kids" where one of the few to have hoods? have you checked the reports lately to see where the "kids" are being held?

8

[QUOTE]
moral standards? why do you assume the "kids" where one of the few to have hoods? have you checked the reports lately to see where the "kids" are being held?
[/QUOTE]

You people and your excuses,,,, pathetic
The United States is the most militaristic, sadistic, totalitarian regime in the world today. Pretty much anybody outside of the US and perhaps Israel is aware of this. Just because you watch CNN and accept it as the word of god don't expect the rest of us to by into your delusional fantasy.

Oh and when a 13 year old is not a "kid", he is a "enemy combatant" (a word invented with the sole purpose of once again violating international law and denying POW's their rights) and can be held indefinitely without charges you have proved my point for me.

Thanks

9

elahi, so if a 13 year old shuts at you with an AK-47 or throws a grenade at you he is still a kid? what? do you just tell him no? Threaten to tell his father?? People younger than 13 can be killers even war-lords, they are no longer "kids". What's CNN got to do with anything? Are the 13 year olds you see on Al-Jazeera that carry weapons and fight along side older people still kids?

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JusticeIsBlind: *
elahi, so if a 13 year old shuts at you with an AK-47 or throws a grenade at you he is still a kid? what? do you just tell him no? Threaten to tell his father?? People younger than 13 can be killers even war-lords, they are no longer "kids". What's CNN got to do with anything? Are the 13 year olds you see on Al-Jazeera that carry weapons and fight along side older people still kids?
[/QUOTE]

um, yes i can't even believe i am arguing this. In my opinion, of course they are still kids. Deeply-disturbed, and kids nevertheless. They're only 13 years old for crying out loud. Is Guantanamo Bay really the most appropriate facility for a 13 year old person ?

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Is Guantanamo Bay really the most appropriate facility for a 13 year old person ?
[/QUOTE]

If that 13 year old has been taught to hate in a maddrassah for most of his life, if that 13 year old carries an AK 47 to kill with, if that 13 year old is ready to martyr himself with a backpack full of explosives which he will use to kill women and children, .... ummmmm .....YES.

12

…] Holding the children was “wholly repugnant and contrary to basic principles of human rights,” said Angela Wright of Amnesty International, and contravened UN rules with “near-universal acceptance” regarding the treatment of juveniles.

The United States and Somalia are the only member states of the United Nations no to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the US is a signatory, and thus has “an obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty,” Ms Wright said. “This is clearly totally at odds with the purpose of the treaty.”

The precise legal ramifications are unclear, since many experts argue that the US is already in breach of international law by holding any of the detainees indefinitely without trial or charge, regardless of their ages. (Source).

13

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
...] Holding the children was "wholly repugnant and contrary to basic principles of human rights," said Angela Wright of Amnesty International, and **contravened UN rules with "near-universal acceptance" regarding the treatment of juveniles*.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder if Angela knows that it is a violation of near-universally accepted international law to conscript, train, arm and utilize children under the age of 15 for military service. I wonder if she knows that the criminal under international law for doing such a thing is deemed to be the government and/or people who do such a thing and NOT any armed force that ends up killing, injuring and/or capturing such a child soldier in combat.

Jeez, you people act as if these 13 year olds were picked up and jailed by US forces while they were eating popcorn at a local theater instead of trying to kill people.

14

Maybe Angela is merely trying to point out that acts of terror and violations of law by one party, do not necessarily confer the right to commit the same for the other party. That's why we have international laws and treaties that countries become signatories of.

Arbitrarily redrawing lines in the sand of international laws doesn't really set much of an example for other countries - they MIGHT, hypothetically, want to do the same themselves one day. They could use this example as a precedent.

Children aren't combatants. Period. It doesn't matter if you are a child soldier who used to fight for the Tamil Tigers, or a child soldier of the Taleban, or whatever. Children are in a unique category of their own and should NOT be treated the same as adults (at least in my opinion, dunno i might be wrong, but that's my two cents).

15

they are being treated differently.

…Because of their special situation, Johnson added, the juveniles have been removed from individual cells at Camp Delta and placed in a group setting away from the other 660 detainees.

As far as international law, teminalogy means a great deal. It’s kinda long but it helps to read it all. The actual page has some neat little tables at the bottom illustrateing the differences in POWS vs Combatants / Tribunal vs Court.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/guantanamo-pr.cfm

GUANTANAMO BAY DISPUTE:
Legal Interpretations?
January 23, 2002 View Standard Version

Recent controversy over the physical and legal treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay highlights the new challenges unconventional U.S. “war” on terrorism has brought to the interpretation of international law and laws of warfare. Washington has thus far refused to grant the detainees official prisoner-of-war (POW) status despite international pressure. The underlying question: how should the United States treat the prisoners, and what are the motives underlying its decisions?

Amalgam of complications

Concerned primarily with fair treatment of the detainees, several European countries, as well as organizations such as Amnesty International and International Committee of the Red Cross, are urging Washington to classify them as POWs who are guaranteed certain rights and protections under a series of agreements known as the Geneva Conventions. 1 A U.S. decision to grant them POW status would, therefore, work to appease some of America’s major allies, ensure justice in a procedure backed by international law, and boost U.S. credibility amidst mounting talk of American unilateralism.

The Pentagon, however, insists on calling the prisoners “unlawful combatants” or “battlefield detainees.” Examining its reasons for doing so reveals that the disagreement goes deeper than mere semantics. It unveils a host of unprecedented legal difficulties that deters Washington from officially labeling the captives as POWs. First, in case of al Qaeda, its fighters are not members of a formal Afghan army, but of a stateless terrorist organization with a global network. According to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, a combatant must be part of an identifiable army or militia, wear a “distinctive sign” such as uniforms and insignias, carry arms, and subscribe to the international laws of warfare - criteria al Qaeda members largely fail to meet. Indeed, scholars claim that no member of a terrorist organization has ever been considered a combatant under international law. Further complicating the case is al Qaeda’s close association with the Taliban, which did maintain a conventional army and thus may have greater reasons to be conferred POW status. 2

Clearly, a thorough investigation and analysis of relevant laws are needed before the status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay can be established. And it is neither the task of the Department of Defense nor of any international organization to determine the legal status of the prisoners; according to the most prevalent interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, they have the right to be heard by an independent judge to have their POW status granted or denied. Such hearings, which would have to begin promptly to settle intensifying disputes, would assure U.S. allies and human rights groups that fairness ruled over the decision and that the United States heeded to international law in determining the fate of the prisoners.

Underlying issues and preferences

The Geneva Conventions mandate, in cases where the status of the detainees are in dispute, that they be given the same treatment as POWs until they have a hearing. In response, the United States has declared that in every way it is following the Geneva Conventions by treating them as POWs - without officially labeling them as such. Why, then, the reluctance on the part of the Pentagon to call them POWs?

Part of the answer derives from a matter of practicality, though a crucial one, in the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign. Under the Geneva Conventions, a POW does not have to provide any information beyond his or her name, rank, date of birth and military or personal serial number. Such a protection seriously impedes Washington’s pressing need to extract as much information as possible regarding the Taliban and the al Qaeda network - including the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

But U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s staunch stance on the status of the detainees is also a reflection of the Bush administration’s overt preference for trying terrorists in special military tribunals rather than in criminal courts. If a detainee is deemed a prisoner of war, the Geneva Conventions stipulate that defendant must have the same rights of appeal or petition under the same civilian or military courts as the armed forces of the detaining country - meaning they cannot be tried in a military tribunal.

If the detainee is denied POW status, however, he or she may now be tried in a military tribunal, as a result of an emergency executive order signed by President George W. Bush last November. 3 The executive order stated that terrorists ought, “when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws” - arguing that they do not deserve POW status, and thus may be tried in military tribunals, because they fail to meet a criterion of Article 4.6 of the Geneva Conventions. Denial of POW status, therefore, is the first necessary step toward effectuating of the executive order while still adhering to the Geneva Conventions.

Compared to U.S. federal or military courts, military tribunals would allow the White House and the Pentagon significant leeway in handling terrorist suspects. Under Bush’s order, the exact details of which have yet to be published, the Department of Defense would apparently have the power to write the rules for the tribunal, as well as to choose members of the panel. Conviction of suspects is also more likely in a military tribunal - it does not have a standard of guilt and can convict with a two-thirds vote, in contrast to a regular trial that requires burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimous jury verdict. There is no provision for appeals to U.S. civil courts or international tribunals, while cases brought to military or civilian courts can end in the Supreme Court. Thus, cases brought to a military tribunal will probably undergo a speedier process.

As an alternative to military tribunals, Rumsfeld may opt for sending the prisoners back to their countries of origin to be tried - again an option the POW status disallows. Moreover, even for those detainees that are not eventually granted POW status, another legal hurdle awaits before they can be sent back: the Geneva Conventions require that prisoners not be deported to countries where they could be physically abused. Current prisoners reportedly include those from Britain, China, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Australia, and humane treatment upon return to some of those countries is difficult to guarantee. This is true even for those who do become official POWs, since they must be returned to their countries at the end of the war. And this is separate from yet another thorny question: when is the end of the war on terrorism, at which point the POWs must be deported?

Reaching a settlement

These intricate legal particularities make the determination of the status, and the future, of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay extremely complex. Eventually, when the Geneva Conventions direct the course of the issue - when appropriate courts and judges, and not the Pentagon nor human rights organizations - determine the status of the detainees, many will likely be granted POW status, and others will legitimately be denied that status. Whatever the outcome, the successful denouement is one in which fairness in the form of the Geneva Conventions is established, moral high ground maintained, and human rights respected, and one that sets a safe and solid precedence for terrorism cases in the future.

16

Apparently the obligation is as follows:

"Under international humanitarian law, under no circumstances should children under the age of 15 be recruited or used to participate in hostilities. A treaty ratified by the United States in December 2002 establishes a higher age of 18 as the minimum age for any compulsory recruitment or participation in armed conflict. It also obliges governments to assist in the demobilization and rehabilitation of former child soldiers.

“The use of children as soldiers is an appalling abuse,” said Becker. “These children are entitled to rehabilitation, not indefinite detention.” "

The US is obligated to Rehabilitate and Demobilize. I am not entirely sure how that is done. Who knows if these kids even have parents, or where the parents are. I suspect they are war orphans, and used as disposable kids.

Frankly I would encourage those who are really concerned to push for the idictment of those who recruited these child fighters, and to make an example of them to discourage this in the future. The US is ending up with the results of a war crime. Obviously the US must treat the children well, and I would suspect that it has already been raised and discussed with the Red Cross who has access to all of the combatants in Guantanamo.

17

Your constant attempts to justify American actions and violations of international laws and norms shows the streak of facism and Nazi-esque feelings of American superiority that are at the heart of all your arguements. Beyond this simple issue to denying POW's their rights these violations extend into issues including the American refusal to validate the Kyoto Agreement on control of greenhouse gases, the American refusal to participate in the international criminal court, continued American development of agents of biological and chemical warfare, weaponization of space and continued American support for Israel despite this states constant violation of the will of the international community and development of WMD's.
I for one would truly believe in the American values of liberty, freedom and justice for all. Unfotunately it does not appear that the current American administration and for that matter most Americans feel that non-Americans, and specifically muslims, are entitled to these rights.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JusticeIsBlind: *
slap their wrist and send them home to mommy and daddy?

[/QUOTE]

easier said than done. their parents were probably killed in some 'accidental' missile incident.

19

elahi did you read any of the previous 2 post??

what the hell does the greenhouse effect have to do with this??

maybe this is where I should stop attemping to continue a conversation with you. especially if you are a tree hugging liberal. and by the way, even all the tree hugging liberals don't believe in freedom for all.

..."and Nazi-esque feelings of American superiority" ??? what world are you on? do you suppose the U.S. is working towards 1 race? the respect I had for your opinion was apparently not warrented.

20

Just wait until those kids are released (which they will be, someday)... Helluva education in the ways of the world spending two years in a cage at that age. We just gave them creds. They get back home and feel like doing some dirty s--- they'll be at the top with ease. At least we have the next Osama's fingerprints already...

Once again, though I don't like the guy his words work here:
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
-- Nietzsche