Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-07-Speech-4-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020207.10.4-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I fully support the USA in its handling of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. It is fully in the interests of Europe's citizens that the American security forces be allowed to interrogate these suspects. This would not be permissible were they classified as prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention, since POWs are only obliged to divulge their name, rank and number, whereas unlawful combatants – their correct classification, in my view, according to the provisions of Article 4(2) of the Geneva Convention – can be interrogated.
I have to say to speakers on the other side of the House that a declaration or non-declaration of war is an irrelevancy under the Geneva Conventions. The US needs to interrogate these individuals as it is an essential part of the worldwide struggle against terrorism. The decision by the US to classify them in this way is, therefore, not vindictive but practical and necessary, but it exposes the inadequacy of the anachronistic international jurisprudence in this area.
Furthermore, it is my belief that many of these individuals are so dangerous that they would not have hesitated to attack their own guards. If they became aware that one of their fellow detainees was likely to crack under interrogation, they would have made efforts to kill him as well.
The only possible alternative – beyond the physical restraints which were placed upon them, both in transit, when they might well have bitten their way through the avionic cables in order to down the planes, and on land – would be the use of high doses of intramuscular tranquillisers which, although effective, would have carried significant risks to the detainees and would have required medical and nursing personnel to accompany them.
There is no evidence that the Americans are treating them cruelly or inhumanely, and we should support them rather than engage in speculative and ill-informed criticism.
My concern is twofold: firstly, as regards what will America do with those it does not file charges against who, if returned to their own countries of origin, may face torture and death for reasons of unrelated Islamic militancy; and secondly, with regard to paragraph 5 of the resolution, which suggests a role for the international criminal court, which has yet to get off the ground? Unfortunately, as well-intentioned as this may be, my understanding is that certainly domestic terrorists, rightly or wrongly, are excluded from the Rome Statute provisions, but it may be that international terrorists could fall under its remit. This is not clear at present.
I have a number of additional concerns about the ICC, such as command responsibility, which blames military commanders even if they had no knowledge of the crimes committed, and also the fact that amnesties and peace and reconciliation processes would become more difficult to achieve between belligerents.
Nevertheless, this whole area of jurisprudence ..."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples