The following is excerpted from a live "chat" that took place between readers of the Guardian (UK) newspaper web site and Avner Gidron, senior policy advisor of Amnesty International (UK). The discussion took place mid-day on January 25, 2002.
Avner Gidron, senior policy adviser at Amnesty International, will be live online on today at 12pm to discuss conditions at Camp X-Ray and the United States's use of Guantanamo Bay to detain prisoners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AvnerGidron - 12:13pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (5.1)
The term "unlawful combatant" or "Battlefield Detainee" are not actual terms in international humanitarian law. There are categories of individuals, such as mercenaries, who are not accorded the full protection of the Third Geneva Convention. But the prisoners in X-ray do not fall under this category. If there is any doubt whether someone is a POW, an independent court must decide their status. The Israeli government used a similar term to describe members of Hezbollah and other Lebanese groups fighting the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, in order to deny them POW status when capture. That was a breach of the Geneva Conventions and so is the US policy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
pollyanna99 - 09:43am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (6.)
How concerned is Amnesty about the UK government's treatment of detained terrorist suspects?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:56pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (6.1)
Amnesty International is very concerned that the UK's emergency legislation is creating a shadow criminal justice system in which the normal safeguards protecting the rights to liberty and fair trial are being eroded. AI believes that people suspected of involvement in violent acts should be charged with a recognizable offence promptly and brought to trial within a reasonable period of time and AI opposes the indefinite detention of suspects underthe new legislation. We have urged the Home Secretary to provide the detainees and their lawyers with the full reasons for their arrest, and to allow the detainees the right to challenge the evidence held against them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
mervynreeves - 09:49am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (7.)
Is it depressing that there is such a limited vision from the populace at large regarding the wider implications for treating prisoners in this way, regardless of what they've (alleged) to have done? Furthermore, is this reaction - that they are getting what they deserve - a widespread problem when Amnesty make other appeals or when they attempt action over other inhumane treatments of prisoners? I'd imagine this wouldn't be the first time you have raised shackles about the treatment of some fairly unsavoury characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
walkersj - 09:55am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (8.)
To what extent was Amnesty involved in fighting for the freedom of anti taliban factions and women in Taliban Afghanistan. Is it hypocrital for Amnesty to now support the Taliban oppressors?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:18pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (8.1)
Amnesty has worked for many years against human rights abuses by all factions in Afghanistan. During the years of Taleban rule, we gave particular attention to violations against women. We are calling for an end to impunity for all serious abuses in Afghanistan, whether committed by members of the Taleban, the Northern Alliance or any other group. Bringing to justice the perpetrators of serious violations is the only way to repair a legacy of abuse and ensure a better future for the Afghan people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
larry1000 - 10:17am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (9.)
this may sound crap but i just don't understand the monumental fuss over camp x-ray (what kind of a name is that anyway?) . Don't get me wrong - of course the way any human being is treated in prison is a very serious issue but this is all about politics and spin and point scoring just dressed up as a cival rights issue isn't it? the press is going balistic and the refugee story seems to carry the same weight as camp x-ray and i think the media's got its priorities out of control. what do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
zephyr1978 - 10:38am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (10.)
Most people invoke the Geneva convention when talking about the treatment of camp X-Ray prisoners, but what exactly does it entail? What does the Geneva convention say about the treatment of prisoners of war? Is the convention sufficient protection, is it lacking in any way? And how did the United States infringe the Geneva convention?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:51pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (10.1)
Under the Geneva Conventions, POWs they should be held in conditions "as favourable" as those of US soldiers; they are not required to divulge information beyond their name, rank, serial number and date-of-birth; they cannot be tried merely for having taken up arms against enemy combatants in the context of the conflict and they should be granted access to delegates of the ICRC. POWs, unless they are to be tried for war crimes or other criminal offences, must be repatriated at the end of "active hostilities".
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
jlperrone - 10:53am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (11.)
Do you think that the fact that the US treats its own prisoners harshly (eg supermax prisons) explains - at least partly - the US apathy about the conditions faced by prisoners at Camp X-Ray?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:45pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (11.1)
It's certainly true that the AI has raised serious concerns about conditions in US prisons, including supermax facilities. In many prisons in the US, the authorities are in violation of their own national standards on conditions including size of cells--as well as contravening international standards such as the UN Standard Minimum Rules. Unfotunately, it is not only the US, but many societies prefer not to think about those people they have incarcerated. Lack of public scrutiny makes prisoner particulary vulnerable to ill-treatment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
sab44 - 10:55am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (12.)
Please correct me if Im wrong Avner, but I think the Geneva convention is pretty clear that these prisoners ARE covered by its provisions, despite what the US is saying and all that crap about "unlawful combatants" - a term it sounds like it's completely invented. The GC says its provisions cover ALL cases of armed conflict, EVEN IF the state of war is not recognised by one of the sides. So if that's true, Id like to know first if the conditions at camp x ray are in fact breaking the GC, and if so, how the US is getting away with it. What sanctions can be brought against them for doing this, and if there are none, what really is the point of having these international laws and codes of behaviour?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:05pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (12.1)
Hi, Thanks for inviting me to participate in this debate. It is correct that the Geneva Conventions apply to all situations of international armed conflict-- regardless of whether one state recognizes the government of its opponent, or whether war has been officially declared. Like the International Committee of the Red Cross, the most authoritative interpreter of the Geneva Conventions, Amnesty International believes that those captured by the US in Afghanistan, in the course of an international armed conflict, and then transferred to a US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are presumed to be POWs. A careful reading of both the Third Geneva Convention and the First Additional Protocol, as well as the official ICRC commentaries on these instruments indicates that they should be interpreted broadly to give the greatest possible protection. If there is any dispute about the status of the prisoners, the US must allow a "competent tribunal" to decide, as required by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. An independent US court following due process can make this determination -- not the Secretary of Defense or any other US administration official. The US is contravening its legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions by refusing to do so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
adriano99 - 10:55am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (13.)
Does the Vietnam war provide us with any guidance on this term "unlawful combatant". Did the US consider the Vietcong as illegal combatants or as bona fide prisoners of war. As for Camp X-Ray, does Amnesty into account that the security measures are to a certain extent dictated by the real risk posed by the suspects as they seem perfectly prepared to take out the guards in any way possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
oscarapfel - 10:58am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (14.)
Has the media reaction to 'Camp X-Ray'not been kneejerk?
If the Taliban and Al Quaida soldiers had been kept in similar surroundings in Afghanistan out of media eyes would there be a similar outcry?
Can Amnesty make a difference against the media/governments agenda?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:26pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (14.1)
Amnesty International is urging the the prisoners being held in Afghanistan by the US, United Front, and other groups must not be forgotten. Journalists who have visited places of detention in Afghanistan reported poor and overcrowded prison conditions. There are reports of ill-treatment. The US, especially, and other coalition members, share a responsibility for the treatment of these prisoners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
jaybob79 - 11:01am Jan 25, 2002 GMT (15.)
How do you feel about the description of the camp in today's Guardian as a "Caribbean gulag". Is it productive to use such terms?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
Tigger1954 - 12:24pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (16.)
Concerning the actual treatment (not the legal status) of the prisoners, the three British prisoners at Guantanamo have apparently told members of the British delegation that visited them that they have no complaints about their conditions and treatment. Do you not believe them? Are they lying under duress? We know it's not the Sheraton, with water beds and cable TV, but if the prisoners aren't complaining, why should outsiders be going so ballistic? I mean, they're not being chained naked to posts...
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:30pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (16.1)
There is still a lack of adequate information concerning the UK government delegation that visited Guantanamo. We do not know who was on the delegation? Did they inform the UK prisoners of their rights? Did they interrogate them? Who else was present during the meetings? Their visit is certainly not an adequate substitute to access to independent counsel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
Nathan44 - 12:24pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (17.)
Hi everyone. If you wish to view a copy of the Geneva Convention you will find one at this address:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/q_genev1.htm
I would, however, like to enquire as to the consequences of violating this convention for the Bush Administration, which, it appears, has only an arbitrary recognition of international law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
cheapside - 12:36pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (17.1)
surley this is the fundamental problem with international relations? who watches the self declared watchmen. already just looking the states attitude/history with the u.n. is depressing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:39pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (17.2)
Legal consequences of violating the Geneva Conventions depend on the type of violation. If the US interrogates these prisoners without informing them of their rights, without lawyers,and then tries them by military commission called for by the presidential order of 13 November, which are incapable of conducting fair trials (not independent or competent, discriminatory, no right to appeal, death penalty), they would be committing a grave breach of the Third Geneva Convention. (Art. 130: "willfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regualr trial"). All High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions(which includes the UK and virutally every country in the world) are obliged to respect and ensure respect for the Conventions, and may do so by exercising universal jurisdiction by bringing to justice suspected perpetrators of grave breaches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
cheapside - 12:42pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (17.2.1)
but what does this mean in real terms? how do you bring to justice a system such as bush's? force a presidential election? sanctions? send in the troops???
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
cheapside - 12:34pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (18.)
am i completely wrong to have assumed that these pows, because that is what they are: sept 11th was accepted as an act of war etc....anyhow, was i wrong to assume that they should be tried in an international court? like helsinki?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
uhteeny - 12:43pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (19.)
Why does the International Community let the USA get away with it. If they where American soldiers in Taliban Prison Camp allegly being mistreated there would be international uproar. This would obviously be led by the US with talk of rescue missions followed by threats of invasion or war. Is it not about time that the international community started to realise that America does what it wants, when it wants and cares little to nothing about what the rest of the world think. Let America flaunt the Geneva Convention, but when there inapt and incredibly incompetent armed forces get captured, as they frequently do they should expect no nor get any help from the rest of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
cheapside - 12:54pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (19.1)
damn right
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
dmhuk - 12:44pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (20.)
Hi Avner,
What right, either based in law or not, did the USA have to remove those prisoners from Afghanistan anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ê
AvnerGidron - 12:48pm Jan 25, 2002 GMT (20.1)
It is only if these prisoners are POWs that the US can be said to have the right to have removed them from Afghanistan. In international armed conflict, captured combatants can be (moved) to the territory of the state that has captured them. But they must be returned at the end of active hostilities. It would not be legal for the US would not be able to transfer Afghan civilians to its territory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[posted 1/26/02]
Acts of War | The New Normalcy | R&R Main
Page
Join Refuse
& Resist!
305 Madison Ave., Suite 1166, New York, NY 10165
Phone: 212-713-5657
email: info@refuseandresist.org