SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Military - Other

Military - Other Echelons away from the trigger pullers, from operational art and theater logistics to service combat development to just plain FOBbits.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-26-2012   #101
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,581
Default Psychological impacts of detention 4 terrorists?

From a student "lurker":
Quote:
Does anybody know of any documentaries made in which the psychological impacts of terrorism detention/internment are discussed/analysed?
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013   #102
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,581
Default Moderator at work

A small number of threads (eight) found by searching on detention and jail, reviewed and merged here. New title too, thanks to JMM, 'Capture, Detain and COIN: merged thread'.

The catalyst? Creating the new thread 'It's July, time for prison break-outs'
__________________
davidbfpo

Last edited by davidbfpo; 07-30-2013 at 02:35 PM.
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013   #103
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,581
Default It's July, time for prison break-outs

In the last few days prisoners have escaped from jails in Iraq, Libya and Pakistan - when external attacks have been successful. Those who escape are often the "cream" or hard-core of insurgencies.

For Iraq I read this sombre report, although I've seen one suggestion some escapees have already been recaptured and one that many were awaiting execution:http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...nightmare.html

Benghazi, Libya appears to be a jail riot and an external riot:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23479913

Pakistan, incidentally the second such attack this year:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23493323 Ahmed Rashid on BBC radio just referred to the prison being informed three days ago of a planned attack and nothing was done in response.

Prison escapes are not unknown, we had them in Northern Ireland and the mainland a few times involving terrorist prisoners / suspects.

Do these incidents reflect official and external inattention, even blindness, to "downstream" aspects of CT - in providing adequate, secure prisons? What is the point of capture if sometimes they escape?

Merged into 'Capture, Detain and COIN: merged thread':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=4358&page=4
__________________
davidbfpo

Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-03-2013 at 10:45 AM. Reason: Merged into this, was stand alone with 400 views
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013   #104
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Repatriation and Parole

This week I was reminded that repatriation and parole still play a role in detentions, whether as EPWs (Enemy Prisoners of War) or ODs (Other Detainees). From Stars & Stripes, In rare move, US won't fight release of sick Guantanamo prisoner (By Ben Fox, AP, October 3, 2013):

Quote:
MIAMI — The U.S. government has dropped its opposition to releasing a Guantanamo Bay prisoner with severe mental and physical illnesses, apparently conceding the argument that he is far too sick to keep locked up at the U.S. base in Cuba.

In court papers filed late Wednesday, lawyers for the Justice Department said the government would not object to a judge issuing a release order for Ibrahim Idris. The native of Sudan has been held for more than 11 years as an enemy combatant despite being diagnosed as mentally ill soon after his arrival at Guantanamo. ...
Wiki - Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris; and Carol Rosenberg, Lawyers argue Guantánamo captive so sick he should go home (8 Jul 2013).

Ironically, since 2009, Idris could simply have been repatriated by an executive order because, as disclosed in the USG's filing:

Quote:
In late 2009, the Executive Branch decided, pursuant to the recommendation of the Guantanamo Review Task Force, that the United States could relinquish custody of Petitioner with certain assurances from a receiving country, including assurances related to the availability of medical care in the receiving country. See Exhibit A, Guantanamo Review Task Force Dispositions Chart.[2]

2. Exhibit A is an excerpt from a publicly disclosed chart reflecting disposition decisions from the Guantanamo Review Task Force process, except that the entry regarding Petitioner on the chart lifts redactions of unclassified information. The remaining redaction in the entry regarding Petitioner protects from public disclosure information that remains classified.
One suspects this case was contested within the Obama administration, as something of a hot potato.

Royce Lamberth ("... Captain in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the United States Army from 1968 to 1974, including one year in Vietnam."), being a crafty dinosaur, simply tossed the hot potato back in the lap of the Executive (Habeas Order):

Quote:
Petitioner’s unopposed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby granted. The United States shall take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate Petitioner’s release.
Had this case been opposed and gone to SCOTUS, it would have squarely presented a very important issue: Do the courts have any role in ordering repatriation of EPWs (Enemy Prisoners of War) or ODs (Other Detainees) [this is the contested issue], where their health conditions require their repatriation under Armed Forces regulations [posit this issue as uncontested] ?

The affirmative of this issue was presented (Brief), in a clever argument based on the Laws of War, by Idris' lawyer, Jennefer Cowan of NYC's Debevoise & Plimpton (45 years ago, a solid, "white shoe" international law firm - as contrasted to the more "L.L. Bean hunting boot" shod crew at Sullivan & Cromwell). Ms Cowan's argument is primarily based on DoD regulations, "informed" (not mandated) by the Geneva Conventions.

First, the DoD regulations:

Quote:
1. Army Regulation 190-8 Requires The Repatriation Of Seriously Ill Detainees

Regulation 190-8 is domestic law, applicable to all branches of the military, which

Quote:
“implements international law, both customary and codified, relating to EPWs [enemy prisoners of war] . . . and ODs [other detainees] [4] which includes those persons held during military operations other than war.”

4. The term “Other Detainees” is defined as “[p]ersons in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces who have not been classified as an EPW [enemy prisoner of war] (article 4, GPW), RP [retained person] (article 33, GPW), or CI [civilian internee] (article 78, GC).” Regulation 190-8 Appendix B, Section II “Terms.” Regulation 190-8 requires that Other Detainees be treated as EPWs until a legal status is ascertained by competent authority. Id.
Regulation 190-8 at ch.1, §1(b); see also Al Warafi, 2013 WL 2278201, at *2 (Guantanamo detainee may invoke Regulation 190-8 “to the extent that the regulation explicitly establishes a detainee’s entitlement to release from custody”). With respect to sick and wounded prisoners, Regulation 190-8 provides that:

Quote:
The following EPW and RP [“Retained Personnel”] are eligible for direct repatriation:
….
(2) Sick or wounded EPW and RP whose conditions have become chronic to the extent that prognosis appears to preclude recovery in spite of treatment within 1 year from inception of disease or date of injury.
Regulation 190-8, ch.3, § 12(l)(2) (emphasis added).[5]

5. Regulation 190-8 also calls for the establishment of a Mixed Medical Commission to determine whether prisoners are eligible for repatriation. Army Regulation 190-8 at ch. 3, §12(a)(2). However, the Mixed Medical Commission need not assess prisoners who are eligible for direct repatriation. Id. at ch. 3, § 12(k)(2). To the best of counsel’s knowledge, no Mixed Medical Commission has been established for the detainees at Guantanamo.
and, as a supplement, the Geneva Conventions:

Quote:
2. The Third Geneva Convention Requires The Repatriation Of Seriously Ill Detainees

In addition to domestic law, it is appropriate to look to “longstanding law-of-war principles” to assist in determining the rights of Guantanamo detainees. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 521; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 630 (2006) (“Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions] ... affords some minimal protection ... to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory ‘Power’ who are involved in a conflict ‘in the territory of’ a signatory.”). ...
...
The government has taken a similar position:

Quote:
“Principles derived from law-of-war rules governing international armed conflicts, therefore, must inform the interpretation of the detention authority Congress has authorized for the current armed conflict.”
Respondents’ Mem. Regarding The Government’s Detention Authority Relative To Detainees Held At Guantanamo Bay, In Re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) (D.D.C. March 13, 2009) 1 (Dkt. No. 1689) (attached hereto as Exhibit C); id. 6, 9 (citing to the Third Geneva Convention).

The Third Geneva Convention requires that certain prisoners be repatriated directly to their home countries:

Quote:
(1) Incurably wounded and sick whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

(2) Wounded and sick who, according to medical opinion, are not likely to recover within one year, whose condition requires treatment and whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely
diminished.

(3) Wounded and sick who have recovered, but whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely and permanently diminished.
Third Geneva Convention, art. 110. This repatriation requirement is grounded in the principle that seriously ill detainees “are no longer likely to take part in hostilities against the Detaining Power.” 1 Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law: Rules 345 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2005).
Ms Cowan's argument is so close to what I'd make that I'd have a hard time deciding the case if I were a judge. The countervailing argument is that the relief requested would infringe on the President's CinC powers. But, sometimes, a case that can be limited to its specific facts (this one) could be a good vehicle for reminding the "Chief" that someone is looking over his or her shoulder.

Regards

Mike

Last edited by jmm99; 10-05-2013 at 08:07 PM.
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2014   #105
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,581
Default Camp Bucca: The US prison that became the birthplace of Isis

An update from The Independent, which raises the issue if detention is used in a COIN / FID campaign, what do you do with the prisoners?

Link:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9838905.html
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2014   #106
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,581
Default If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now.

A long article in The Guardian, based on an interview with an ISIS veteran and entitled 'Isis: the inside story'. Some content is new IIRC.
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...e-inside-story

Cross-posted on the current Iraq thread.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
capture, counter insur, counter terrorism, counterterrorism, detention, escape, imprisonment, internment, iraq, jail, libya, pakistan, terrorism

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8. ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation