User:Geo Swan/Bagram/Bagram detainee review boards

__NOINDEX__

In September 2009 it was widely reported that the Obama Presidency was planning to authorize new Bagram detainee review boards.

Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention
During the George W. Bush Presidency captives apprehended during the "war on terror" were not accorded the full protections of the Geneva Conventions. They were not provided with reviews of their combatant status under article 5 of the third Geneva Convention. Article 5 states that every captive about whose status doubt exists should have their status reviewed by a "competent tribunal". In its previous wars the United States Armed Services convened tribunals that operated according to the procedures laid out in Army Regulation 190-8. Army Regulation 190-8 used the same definitions of combatant as the Geneva Conventions. Close to 1300 captives apprehended by the USA during the 1991 Gulf War had AR-190-8 tribunals convened. Close to 900 of them were determined to have been civilians, and were released. All the remaining men were determined to have been lawful combatants, entitled to POW status. The USA did not convene any war crimes trials following the 1991 Gulf War.

The AR-190-8 tribunals were authorized to determine that captives were combatants who complied with the Geneva Conventions, who should continue to be held as prisoners of war; they were authorized to determine that captives were innocent civilian bystanders, who were entitled to immediate release; and they were authorized to determine that a captive was a combatant, who had likely lapsed from compliance with the Geneva Conventions, or one of the other generally accepted laws or customs of war. Captives determined to likely to have committed a war crime were still supposed to be treated humanely, but they could stand trial for their war crimes.

Because prisoners of war were entitled to have their combatant status reviewed

After a long battle in the United States Justice system captives apprehended during the "