President is above the law........Follow

Thats why i said it could be argued that it doesn't apply, however the first article on torture does apply to everyone and I mean everyone.

the Onus is not on the countries that haven't signed to adhere to the treaty but those who have and since America is effectively in control of Iraq anyone in that country counts as being subject to thier rule.

I believe that breaking the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT. is grounds for being called in front of the War crimes tribunals in the Hague.



America have not pulled out of the Geneva Convention yet.



Has Mr Bush and Blair got thier suitcasses packed?

Edited, Fri Jan 7 19:23:44 2005 by tarv[/i

[i]Edited, Fri Jan 7 19:21:23 2005 by tarv

Exerpts of the G.C.
Notice the prohibitions against hostage taking, terrorism, etc.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:

(b) collective punishments;
(c) taking of hostages;
(d) acts of terrorism;
Art 23. Entry into force

1. This Protocol shall enter into force six months after two instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited.

2. For each Party to the Conventions thereafter ratifying or acceding to this Protocol, it shall enter into force six months after the deposit by such Party of its instrument of ratification or accession.

Seriously, why do you need to refer back to the Geneva Convention to tell you what you can or cannot do in war. Yeah its the LAW, but come on, does that mean everything not against the law is good?

Yeah, the Geneva Convention does a pretty damn awesome job of defining war crimes and atrocities, but does that make it perfect? Common sense goes a long way.

Even if you think that every person of the Middle-East is a terrorist, even if you believe that they all deserve to die, why hurt them while doing it? Have the common decency to enact punnishment fast and painless.

Oh, good, I can quote again. ( still no idea why I couldn't earlier.)

Of course the media is protected. THey are members of the U.S., a signatory of the Conventions. Stop being a total idiot.

You're both right and wrong Palpitus. The problem is that you are condensing several different issues into one. First off, the AGs memo was specifically referring to *some* of the Afghani detainees. Not all. And at that time, not referring to anyone in Iraq (since we hadn't invaded yet).

Same thing with the prison in Iraq. The "contradictions" you're pointing out are because you (ok, not you personally) are mixing and matching different groups of people. *Some* of the prisoners were captured and detained as "illegal combattants". Most were not. Those who were not should be treated either as domestic prisoners (having rights as such), or prisoners of war (also having rights as such). So when Rumsfield talks about photos being illegal, he's correct. If those were pictures of legitimate POWs, then they were taken and distributed illegally.

The problem is that both of those groups tend to get meshed into one. We know that the US government has defined some combatants as "illegal combatants" under the GC, and therefore not afforded them the full rights that POWs get. But we also know that some prisoners were (as you say) just the victims of random roundups. Those aren't the same people. We then hear about abuses in the Iraqi prison and that starts up the debate over the torture memo earlier. But those are two separate incidents. To my knowledge, no one in the administration has tried to claim that any of the prisoners that were abused in that prison were defined as illegal combatants and were systematically denied POW rights. That was pure assumption and illogic. They were POWs. They were mistreated. It was wrong. There was *no* directive from on high stating that the prisoners there were not supposed to recieve the full treatment rights of POWs. Every indication and investigation has shown that the abuses were the result of a relatively small number of bored soldiers who decided to have some fun at the prisoner's expense.

Attempting to make any direct connection between the Afghani detainees and those in Iraq is really poor logic. The classification of those prisoners was very specific. While we can assume that some prisoners taken in Iraq have been catagorized in the same manner, there is no evidence to indicate that *any* of the abuses at that prison were the result of that classification. Continuing to connect the two is spurious at best.

Additionally, while you do a great job making a point with the GC, you still don't proove your point at all:




They were not members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict (Afghani military). So they dont fall under this catagory.



They don't match this criteria either. No command structure with "responsible" leadership. No distinctive sign. Not carrying arms openly.



Not members of any regular armed forces at all.



Not accompanying regular armed forces either.



Not crews for vehicles being used by regular armed forces.



This is the closest. However, they weren't carrying arms openly or respecting the laws and customs of war.



Some of the Iraqi insurgents most definately do. However, the memo being referred to in the article was from the Afghanistan conflict. Note also that *most* detainees in Iraq are being treated fully as POWs. The point being that someone who does not wear a uniform, does not follow a command structure, and who fires from surprise at military units while hidden in a crowd of children is *not* covered by any of those conditions. Not one.

There is a section of the GC that does cover those sorts of acts. I'll pull it out for you if you want (it's in a different article alltogether). It covers sabateurs and "illegal combatants". It specifically discusses acts of terrorism and insurgency done specifically in a manner to hide among civilian populations and to make it hard if not impossible to fight them without harming innocent civilians, and it does have a totally different set of rights, rules, and conditions.

Read more then just the section on Prisoners of War in the GC. You might find it interesting and informative. You're essentially making the mistake of assuming that this one article is the *only* one that applies, and pulling it out to show what rights they should recieve. But that's not all that's in the GC...



Why is that interesting or surprising? If they've been defined as POWs, then of course they should be treated as such. No one has ever said anything differently. Somehow, the fact that some detainees (an incredibly small percentage actually) were defined as illegal combatants instead of POWs, we've gotten it in our heads that this means that the US government is no longer respecting the Geneva Convention on POWs, or respecting the rights of POWs. That is absolutely not the case. All we've done is determine that some of the combatants don't fall into the POW catagory in the first place. This is no way weakens legitimat POW rights.

1. If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply from us to Iraqi POWs, why would it apply from Iraqi military to our POWs? Unless he's thinking of some other auspice under which a "war criminal" could be prosecuted?

Flawed assumption. The GC *does* apply to Iraqi POWs. Just as it applies to Iraqi and Afghani illegal combatants. Your arguing that illegal combatants should have the same rights as POWs, even though the GC specifically has different treatment defined for them. You're also assuming that since we defined some people as illegal combatants, that therefore *all* captured Iraqi's are put in the same catagory. Those are both absolutely incorect assumptions.

2. When we did mistreat our prisoners, we didn't try our soldiers who did so with War Crimes, merely with infractions of the Military Code of Justice. Clearly Bush was not really meaning what he was saying.

Because you don't try your own military with "War Crimes". That is generally reserved for people in charge of militaries, not individual soldiers. It's also done in a world court. I'd also suggest that mistreating a relatively small number of prisoners in a relatively ad-hoc manner is not really on the same level of "War Crimes" as killing a few hundred thousand people in death camps. Those are war crimes. What these soldiers did was a violation of the codes they were supposed to follow. They were treated exactly as such. Why argue for more? Are you really suggesting that the mistreatment was on the same scale as Hitler killing millions of Jews in Germany? Or Milsovic killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Bosnia? There not even in the same ballpark...

Also at that time, Donald Rumsfeld was citing the Geneva Convention when pictures of our POWS emerged:

http://www.unknownnews.net/030323geneva.html

Appearing on several morning talk shows, U.S. defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the footage of captured soldiers was a violation of the Geneva Convention.

"That's a violation of the Geneva Convention, those pictures you show, if, in fact, those are our soldiers," Rumsfeld told CBS's "Face the Nation."

So gee, Iraqi combatants aren't a party to the Convention, but the media is?? I don't see their name on the list of contracting parties.

Already covered this in part. You are assuming that the prisoners in that case were not defined as POWs. They were. They were mistreated. The guilty parties have been punished. Get over it.



Edited, Fri Jan 7 20:34:09 2005 by gbaji

I wouldn't say every indication, Brig. Gen Karpinski alluded to a C&C structure involving outside military intelligence, as have some of the accused (or their lawyers). But I see no reason to believe it was ordered from higher up.

I do think there was and probably remains a very serious lack of organization throughout the military and Justice Department on the exact issues you cite--confusion as to who is who, what is allowable to who, under whose authority command is. I've noticed if not contradictory, at least confusing statements on the part of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush, that make me think there's no organized disposition of prisoners. (Applies to Afghanistan and Iraq).

That we've sometimes said "they will be treated in full accordance with the GC", but other times see memos stating "the GC is antiquated wrt combat with insurgents", and I have to wonder if I'm not the only one being confused as to what's going on. While the GC is to be posted at every POW/prisoner camp, I have to wonder if the soldiers think "Does this still apply?" Particularly if they're not being given updated GC training. Not sure if that's happening or not, can't remember from the Taguba report.



It's assumptive, but considering the reports of murder and abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo, I have to wonder if there's any classification=treatment process at all. Coupled with the very long history of avoidance of classification for Gitmo prisoners (only spurred on by the Supreme Court), and I'll remain pretty skeptical even if I have no facts.



I merely indicated that it could be argued that any number of the enemy (indeed, in any conflict) was subject to the GC. Specifically my intent was to refute the claim that the only proviso was wearing a uniform, when that was only one of the provisos among a "multiple choice" of them. I didn't see a good way to dispute this without entering the entire article.



I've read various parts of the GC, including the section on illegal combatants (which are never explicitly described as such IIRC, though many like to cite them as being described as such by the GC).

The GC seems contradictory at times, and inscrutable at others, so I can certainly see the argument from both sides. Reminds me of Constitutional arguments, where every word is parsed for intent. I do think some of the Iraqi insurgents could fit under section 2 of my supplied article, but I won't press the issue as it's pretty unresolvable.



Bush and others have lumped all at Gitmo into the same boat many times. I'm getting kind of lazy so won't look for quotes, but they've said "we'll treat the prisoners in accordance with the GC", not specifying classification needed for inclusion as a protected party. More a sweeping promise to do so regardless of classification. They may have even specified that "illegal combatants" will be afforded all rights under the GC, can't remember exactly.



I'm going by what my President says, that we'll treat our prisoners according to the Geneva Convention. Certainly there could be contradictions in what Bush or others have said and what our policies actually are, that wouldn't surprise me. Various contradictory memos and statements make this very likely.



I agree, but Bush is the one who argued it. He warned common Iraqi soldiers that they'd be tried for War Crimes if they harmed our prisoners. Yes, that was the only option for trying them as the Iraqi army was soon-to-be-decimated. But I object to such a high threat, followed by four plea bargains for our own soldiers who commit War Crimes. I wouldn't want our soliders turned over to the ICC (in the odd case we'd actually join it), but I would've liked to have seen a special tribunal for our soldiers who abused prisoners. Applying the UCMJ to these crimes seems rather insufficient.

Same thing with the prison in Iraq. The "contradictions" you're pointing out are because you (ok, not you personally) are mixing and matching different groups of people. *Some* of the prisoners were captured and detained as "illegal combattants". Most were not. Those who were not should be treated either as domestic prisoners (having rights as such), or prisoners of war (also having rights as such).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

here is the problem.

YOU are swollowing the party line without looking at the evidence.

1. there was no such thing as "enemy combatants" untill this addministraition coined the word.

2. ALL of them, EVERYONE of them ARE prisoners of war. the geneva convention.....WE SIGNED.....was ment to cover ALL prisoners of war.

3. this addministraition wanted to TORTURE these prisoners to get information from them. so to "SIDESTEP" the LAW we agreed to abide by, they "redifined" the enemy in this WAR so the LAW WE AGREED TO ABIDE BY did not cover them.

some FACTS for you.

OUR supreme court has declared ALL of them are covered by the geneva convention......irreguardless of what our executive branch wants YOU SHEEP to believe.

our executive branch is committing a WAR CRIME. our coonstitution has checks and ballances to prevent any one branch of our government from running amok. this branch of government under this addministraition is making a mockery of our constitution, not to mention a mockery of this country through out the world.

we tried to impeach Clinton for lying to congress about a ********......but we are supposed to waive the flag like good little lemmings as Bush committes WAR CRIMES?

YOU are the problem. and 59 million more just like you.

this AG wants to say whatever this addministraition does is legal and just irreguardless of the laws this country as agreed to abide by for the last 200 years.

and 59 million of YOU are why he is getting away with this TREASON.

And to think all they wanted was to not see gay people marry...

In my opinion, the President is above and slightly to the right of the law.

Shadow you might want to revist a dictionary and atually look up what Treason means.
------------------------------------------------------------

conspiring with the enemy to do harm to your country.

enemy = this addministraition.

typical republican.

show only the info that supports your view, and skip over anything that doesnt.
--------------------------------------------------------------
1.Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2.A betrayal of trust or confidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------

this addminsitraition betrayed the trust and confidence of the people of this country, and most of the free world for that matter, through misinformation, propaganda, and blatent lies.

it is TREASON.