Inter Arma Silent Leges? Applying Humanitarian and Human Rights Law to the Swedish Citizen at Guantanamo Bay.
Since January 2002, a Swedish citizen has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He was captured in Pakistan during the post-September 11 war between Afghanistan and the United States and subsequently brought to Guantanamo, where he has now passed his two years imprisonment. The U.S. has pronounced that it cannot determine how dangerous he is because he is not answering questions and as a consequent of that he cannot be repatriated. The war in Afghanistan is over but the ''war against terrorism'', which the U.S. started, is still going on. The U.S. has determined that the laws of war or international humanitarian law is applicable to the ''war on terrorism''. But even during armed conflicts, to which the humanitarian law is applicable, the fundamental provisions of international human rights law remain in force. Despite the numerous criticisms from different human rights organisations, the U.S. has still not reviewed its position that the individuals at Guantanamo are not entitled to prisoner of war status and that they should continue to be detained. The U.S. opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to the Taliban detainees but that they do not fulfil the requirements of being prisoners of war. Regarding the al-Qaeda detainees the opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable because al-Qaeda is not a state party to the Conventions and as an international terrorist organisation they are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war. When going through the provisions enabling entitlement to POW status, it seems that it cannot be clearly said that the Taliban detainees do not fulfil the requirements. Neither can it be beyond doubt that al-Qaeda detainees fall outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. is nevertheless refusing to let a competent tribunal, as referred to in article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, determine the status of the detainees. The U.S. claims that it has determined the status on an individual basis but ends the discussion by saying that most of the detainees are likely to lie. This thesis looks at the U.S. detention and treatment of the Swedish citizen at Guantanamo in an international humanitarian and human rights law perspective. I would argue that the detention itself could be justified under either humanitarian law or human rights law, but the U.S. fails to treat the detainee according to those laws.
Treatment of Battlefield Detainees in the War on Terrorism [Updated January 23, 2007]
Abstract : In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism. The Court overturned a ruling that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens detained abroad, but left questions involving prisoners rights and status unanswered. The 9/11 Commission recommended a common coalition approach to such detention. Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) to establish standards for interrogation and to deny detainees access to federal courts to file habeas petitions but allow limited appeals of status determinations and final decisions of military commissions. Congress approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) to authorize military commissions for the prosecution of detainees for war crimes. The Bush Administration earlier deemed all of the detainees to be "unlawful combatants," who may, according to Administration officials, be held indefinitely without trial or even if they are acquitted by a military tribunal. Fifteen of the detainees were designated as subject to the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, making them eligible for trial by military commission. In answer to the Rasul decision, the Pentagon instituted Combatant Status Review Tribunals to provide a forum for detainees to challenge their status as "enemy combatants." The Pentagon had earlier announced a plan for annual reviews to determine whether detainees may be released without endangering national security. This report provides an overview of the law of war and the historical treatment of wartime detainees, in particular the U.S. practice; describes how the detainees status might affect their rights and treatment; and summarizes activity of the 108th and 109th Congresses related to detention in connection with the war against terrorism.
Expected annual emergency miles per ambulance: an indicator for measuring availability of Emergency Medical Services resources.
CONTEXT
To ensure equitable access to prehospital care, as recommended by the Rural and Frontier Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agenda for the Future, policymakers will need a uniform measure of EMS infrastructure.


PURPOSE AND METHODS
This paper proposes a county-level indicator of EMS resource availability that takes into consideration existing EMS resources (ambulances), population health and demographics, and geographic factors. The indicator, the EXpected annual emergency miles per AMBulance (EXAMB), provides a basis for comparing ambulance availability across counties within states. A method for calculating the EXAMB indicator is demonstrated using data from 5 states.


FINDINGS
The EXAMB indicator was negatively correlated with ambulance availability per 100,000 population in 4 of the 5 states in the study. The indicator was positively correlated with rurality in 3 states. In Mississippi, South Carolina, and Wyoming, whole-county health professional shortage areas had median EXAMB values 45%-81% higher than those of the non-health professional shortage areas counties.


CONCLUSIONS
Future research should explore the relationship of the EXAMB to EMS outcomes, with the ultimate goal of developing a nationally recognized indicator of "adequate" EMS resource availability.