Ihl's Injustices

There is a fine line between taking the enemy captive as part of war and torturing them. I believe that during war it is inevitable that people are going to be held captive as part of war, but there is some sort of humanity that needs to be upheld at the end of the day. There are many international treaties such as the Geneva Convention that many nations are a part of. The idea behind the convention is to make sure that all of the nations are on board with one another on how they are going to treat people. The problem is that most other nations besides the United States have a different mindset of how they operate and how they believe people should be treated in situations of war or high profile people. Most people would like to live in the United States because of all of the rights everyone has here in the country.

The Third Geneva Convention is probably the most recognized and important treaty concerning prisoners of war to ever be put down on paper that is recognized by the world over. Though this treaty is very thorough and complete in its wording regarding those that are affected and bound by its wording, there still is one major defect in the treaty that needs to be rectified and dealt with. This flaw is that there is no independent court body or commission that oversees abuses by parties against others in regards to their mistreatment or torture. Persons who find themselves at the hands of captors only have international courts or commissions as well as domestic courts to hear their cases. This can cause an untimely delay in hearing these cases,

Have we forgotten about the International Covenant of Civil Rights and Political rights (ICCPR), the Convention under Torture and other

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the undoing of the Bush administration’s legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a host of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by Americans or America’s ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their status there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather as

POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

Did you know, as American taxpayers, maintaining the prison at Guantánamo has costed $4.8 billion since it had opened in 2002? Well this al back to “ The Global War on Terror” under the Bush administration that,. response to the 9/11 attacks, targeted middle eastern regions of the world;, collecting men from left to right by heavily armed American soldiers. Unfortunately, some of them are destined to pay for another man’s crime by serving time in Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay, located within a naval base in Cuba, became a facility purposed to hold alleged enemy combatants and terrorists alike. Because of later documented injustices reported against detainees, it gained negative spotlight by both citizens and world leaders. When Obama succeeded in presidency, closing the facility became one of his priorities for a number of reasons.

On U.S. territory and the government argues that they therefore have neither constitutional rights nor the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty governing detention during wartime. Basic principles like due process,

As we evolved into a more civilized society many things changed. Medicine became better; schools and education improved, and treatment of our prisoners became more humane. The constitution of our country clearly prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. No longer would captors be allowed torture that captive with iron maidens or contraptions of the like. These basic rules seem obvious to us today, but they represent the foundation of prisoner rights, the idea that even if we break the rules of our society we are still afforded basic rights that can not be taken from us. What are these rights? When did they come about? Why did they happen? In this paper

In the opinion piece, A sorry state? Written on 2nd of august 2007, Professor Janice Stevens opposes in an alarmed and critical tone that the treatment of David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay is a violation of human rights and that Australia’s response only shows that other citizens should be scared of themselves being held in such a state. In a sophisticated style the article addresses at an educated adult audience, or to those who are concerned about the treatment of their fellow citizens.

Every person has the right to undergo a judicial hearing to avoid illegal detention. However, if that person poses threat to the society and the state, there are instances that the said right is overseen where these types of people are quickly detained after capturing. The writ of Habeas Corpus gives the rights to the captured people to undergo judicial trial. But there is also an article in the U.S. Constitution that states that the writ of Habeas Corpus can only be lifted if the people being questioned in involved in a rebellion or pose a threat to the safety of the public. That is why the administration of the previous U.S. President Bush detained all of the people whom they tagged as terrorist and were captured in the war on Afghanistan in 2001. The question now is to what extend must be the actions of an individual in order to undergo proper trial hearing or to just be put in imprisonment without any hearings or trials done? The purpose of this paper is to review issues within Habeas Corpus and GITMO, discuss how policies changing over time affect the dynamic state of United States, and how these changes can make a big impact to the future law making and practice of the country that is why this issue must be evaluated and examined.

This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.

The US’s unilateral reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions to support its questionable detention policies undermines respect for the rule of law around the world and puts US

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

In addition the exploitation of prisoner’s labor has been a continuing issue. Enforcement of prison labor by the state and the utilitarianism of international human rights law preserves state power, although are a focus of

In order to answer this question of rights in captivity, leaders must assess the situation through the lens of an overarching value and a criterion, or means to achieve the value. Executive Order 10631 lays out the duties and responsibilities of US service members in captivity. According to Article III, it is the responsibility of the captured to “continue to resist by all means necessary” (Executive Order No. 10631, 1955). We thus accept this responsibility as the mission of the POW, and ultimately, the value under which we will assess this ethical dilemma.