User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/other articles that aren't ready yet/Guantanamo captives' AR 190-8 Tribunal

This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's rough notes page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.

The Bush Presidency's position had been that there would be no Guantanamo captives' AR 190-8 Tribunals.^[1]^[2] But, in mid 2008 the BBC reported that three officer Tribunals had been convened for nine of the captives who faced charges before Guantanamo military commissions.^[3]

References[edit]

^ "The Justices Take On the President". New York Times. January 16, 2004. Retrieved 2008-06-12. But the Bush administration has refused to comply with the Geneva Convention. A government brief in the Supreme Court put it bluntly: "The president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has conclusively determined that the Guantánamo detainees — both Al Qaeda and Taliban — are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention." In other words, the courts have no business getting into the issue. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Anthony Lewis (November 15, 2005). "Prisoners of the Senate". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-12. But the current President Bush decided that the prisoners at Guantánamo - most of them captured in the Afghanistan war but some brought from distant countries - were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. All, he decided, were "enemy combatants" outside the protection of the conventions because they were either Qaeda terrorists or Taliban soldiers. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling". BBC News. Thursday, 8 July, 2004. Retrieved 2008-06-12. This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[NYTimes20040116-1] "The Justices Take On the President". New York Times. January 16, 2004. Retrieved 2008-06-12. But the Bush administration has refused to comply with the Geneva Convention. A government brief in the Supreme Court put it bluntly: "The president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has conclusively determined that the Guantánamo detainees — both Al Qaeda and Taliban — are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention." In other words, the courts have no business getting into the issue. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[NYTimes20051115-2] Anthony Lewis (November 15, 2005). "Prisoners of the Senate". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-12. But the current President Bush decided that the prisoners at Guantánamo - most of them captured in the Afghanistan war but some brought from distant countries - were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. All, he decided, were "enemy combatants" outside the protection of the conventions because they were either Qaeda terrorists or Taliban soldiers. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[Bbc20080612-QandA-3] "Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling". BBC News. Thursday, 8 July, 2004. Retrieved 2008-06-12. This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]