The term for non uniformed combatants on foreign soil used by the Bush Administration is "enemy combatants". This murky title has been used to deny them certain rights under the geneva convention since they are not uniformed soldiers.
Now Gbaji has pulled this one out before but I would just like to note:
Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Bush has repeatedly refused to hold any form of tribunal in accordance to article 5 in order to clear up the issue.
Also to quote the ICRC(The Internation committee of the Red Cross)
"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
Also if a person isn't considered a POW then it is illegal for the US to deport them from non US soil to US soil (article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention). Which obviously applies to Gitmo.
The hinger is that since terrorists dont wear a uniform or or any recognizable signal that Bush and co can manuever in a rather large gray area and do whatever they want. So what happens when the Senate passes a amendment to the defense spending bill? An amendment that clearly defines how "enemy combatants" are to be treated?
Bush and his adminstration promise to vetoe it.
The Senate overwhelmingly agreed late yesterday to set standards for treatment, interrogation, and detention of prisoners held by the U.S. military. In a strong break from the Bush administration, the measure passed 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
...
The White House has said President Bush would veto the defense-spending bill if the amendment were attached.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051006/6torture.htm
You would think a "straight shooter" like Bush would welcome a clear and honest outline for the treatment and handling of detainees. He has only been lamenting its non existence everytime the issue comes up.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gitmo/Abu Ghraib and the Geneva Convention
Gitmo/Abu Ghraib and the Geneva ConventionFollow
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
I didn't think that Iraq or Afghanastan were part of the Geneva Conventions? Didn't only a select few countries actually agree to that? **not saying some of the inhumane treatment is ok, just trying to clarify something that I find confusing.
Edited, Sat Oct 8 05:47:56 2005 by niobia
Edited, Sat Oct 8 05:47:56 2005 by niobia
Even if they didn't sign the accord, we did, pledging to conduct ourselves by its standards. And we have reneged on that pledge.
Scholar
17 posts
Quote:
Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Bush has repeatedly refused to hold any form of tribunal in accordance to article 5 in order to clear up the issue.
Actually, it could be argued that the military tribunals that the President ordered
in November of 2001 (and modified in 2002, with a followup revision in 2005) would fulfill the requirements of the Geneva Convention; and, indeed, that is the argument that the White House makes. From a certain point of view this position is correct, although I argue that because the tribunals allow confessions to be extracted by torture and do not require a chain of evidence, they do not meet the requirement that the "enemy combatants" enjoy the protection of the Convention.
Quote:
Also to quote the ICRC(The Internation committee of the Red Cross)
"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
As much as I like the ICRC, it should be pointed out that they are a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO); their opinions hold no standing beyond a moral one. According to the Third Geneva Convention, persons waging war must fulfill one of the following conditions to be treated as a lawful combatant:
Quote:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The stipulations of #2 are all-inclusive; that is, they must be commanded, must have a distinctive sign, must carry arms openly, and must conduct their operations in accordance with international law to qualify for the protections of #2. The Bush administration and its apologists claim that because terrorism suspects do not respect the laws of war, they do not qualify under the terms of the Convention. They claim then that because terrorists do not fall under the POW protections, they can then be dealt with as unlawful combatants (see the Angola mercenary trial of June, 1976).
I offer these points to provide a reasoned response. Personally, however, I feel it's hogwash. If we are fighting a global "War on Terror" in which those who harbor terrorists or at the very least can't get rid of them fast enough to suit us, then the people we are fighting this "war" against are combatants within that war. If we capture them, or if they surrender, then they are prisoners of the War on Terror- hence, Prisoners of War.
As an aside, the problem with Gitmo is that the Bush Administration can claim it's Cuban land when it suits them (thus dodging the stipulation that POW camps must be situated in the territory of the nation wherein the POWs were captured), but can exercise all sovereign powers over that land when it suits them. It's a legalistic dodge that the judiciary has not seen fit to challenge as it should.
Our treatment of terrorism suspects is a black mark against this country equalled only by our truly horrifying treatment of homeless children, of which we have several million (IIRC). We are supposed to be a beacon of freedom, fairness, democracy, and justice that illuminates the world. Instead, we skulk about like the tinpot banana republic dictators we had so much practice installing and removing over the last several decades.
I want America back.
captainktainer is my new hero.
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Irrelevant point though. You're ignoring the "Should any doubt arise..." part of the article. In the case of those falling under the "spies and sabateurs" section of the 4th convention (which is the article the "unlawful combatants" or whatever you call them fall under), there isn't any doubt.
If they catch a civilian building bombs in his basement to use against US or allied forces in Iraq, that person *clearly* is not entitled to POW status. He's a civilian,taking advantage of his protection as such to attack the occupying power (us in this case). There is no legal doubt under the Conventions where that person falls.
Quote:
Bush has repeatedly refused to hold any form of tribunal in accordance to article 5 in order to clear up the issue.
I'm really not sure what you think this tribunal means. What they are talking about is that if someone is captured fighting in a war, and it's unclear if this person is a lawful combatant or not, then a tribunal is formed to determin that. It's done in each case and for each person. It's not some broad thing like you seem to be implying it should be.
You are *grossly* misinterpreting the Conventions.
Quote:
Also to quote the ICRC(The Internation committee of the Red Cross)
"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
Again. You're confusing the issue (deliberately I suspect). They are civilians covered by the Fourth Convention. There's no disrepancy or ambiguity here. You're trying to create a situation that doesn't exist.
Quote:
Also if a person isn't considered a POW then it is illegal for the US to deport them from non US soil to US soil (article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention). Which obviously applies to Gitmo.
Um. Not really. I'd have to look up that section of the Convention (and read the rest to ensure there's no conditions that rule does not apply to), so take this as a first blush response. Gitmo is a US holding. I don't think *anyone* has argued it's "US soil". It's under the US flag, but it's a military base. No different then a dozen others we have around the world that are also not US soil.
At the very least it's not as "obvious" as you are making it out to be.
Quote:
The hinger is that since terrorists dont wear a uniform or or any recognizable signal that Bush and co can manuever in a rather large gray area and do whatever they want. So what happens when the Senate passes a amendment to the defense spending bill? An amendment that clearly defines how "enemy combatants" are to be treated?
Bush and his adminstration promise to vetoe it.
The Senate overwhelmingly agreed late yesterday to set standards for treatment, interrogation, and detention of prisoners held by the U.S. military. In a strong break from the Bush administration, the measure passed 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
...
The White House has said President Bush would veto the defense-spending bill if the amendment were attached.
Bush and his adminstration promise to vetoe it.
The Senate overwhelmingly agreed late yesterday to set standards for treatment, interrogation, and detention of prisoners held by the U.S. military. In a strong break from the Bush administration, the measure passed 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
...
The White House has said President Bush would veto the defense-spending bill if the amendment were attached.
You're confusing the issue again. The bill has *nothing* to do with the definition of "enemy combatants" (which was the point you've been making all along, right?). It has to do with the definition of "torture", and legal standards for interrogation. That's a completely different topic. It has notning to do with these prisoners being or not being in a "gray area".
Quote:
You would think a "straight shooter" like Bush would welcome a clear and honest outline for the treatment and handling of detainees. He has only been lamenting its non existence everytime the issue comes up.
Huh? Did you just make this up? We've been following the rules in the MCoJ the entire time. Always have. Have there been some violations? Yup. But that does not mean that there aren't "rules" established. Just that some people have violated them.
And it's not as widespread as everyone likes to imply. To date, out of literally tens of thousands of interrogations, we've got confirmation of what? a half dozen violations? That's hardly the widespread failure the talking heads make it out to be. There's a whole lot of smoke on this issue, and not very much fire...
I'd need to read over the wording of the Senate Bill, but I'd suspect that the reason Bush is talking veto is that it's an attempt to apply the same standards for POWs to all prisoners regardlesss of GC status (just as you, and a whole lot of well meaning, but ill informed people seem to want to do). The GC puts harsh penalties on civilians who violate the "rules for war" or exactly the reason that they wanted to make sure everyone followed them. Realize that the restrictions apply to states and "official" members of states (ie: via a chain of command). It would not take a genius to realize that he could operate his military as "irregulars" specifically to insulate the government from responsibility for their acts, and essentially violate the GCs at whim with no recours. That's *why* we provide such preferential treatment to POWs. They are rewarded for playing by the rules. If you give that same status to everyone, even those who violate the terms of the 4th Convention, then you essentially destroy the effectiveness of the 3rd Convention.
Again. I haven't read through it yet. But my guess is that it's a well meant, but poorly thought Bill. Unfortunately, it's one of those things that they *can't* vote against, or they'll be labeled as the "guy who voted for legalized torture". This is a textbook case of why presidents have Veto power. Someone introduces a bill or part of a bill, worded in such a way that joe public will assume it's a no-brainer, and no Congressman will want to vote against it so they're stuck.
I'll have to read up on the wording though. Any bets I'm right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
tribunals allow confessions to be extracted by torture
I think we first need to establish the answer to "What is torture" to both cultures. Is having a bag over your head torture? Is being pelted with rocks torture? Now we get into of course the varying degrees of torture which in itself defines a cultures perspective as tow hat qualifies as torture.
The problem with this debate is that it isn't a black or white, cut and dried case. Do the alleged victims have food, water,bed and access to a bathroom? Are they being served Filet Mignon, Evian, sleeping on 200 thread count sheets and pissing in gold pots? It's extreme when you try to put something like this into a black or white arguement.
Are they being beaten?We don't know, each culture defines torture differently. Not being permitted to pray to Mecca could be considered a torture but within the black and white context, not allowing students to pray in public schools could then, in fact, be considered torture as well.
Quote:
requirements of the Geneva Convention
While doing a quick bit of research on the application of the Geneva Convention, I came upon this tender morsel of information.
The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law than many other nations, particularly in Europe. Unlike nations which view international agreements as always superseding national law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law
An example of this is Goldwater V. Carter,444 U.S. 996(1979) which is where The Supreme Court ruled that the President has the power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty without the consent of Congress or the Senate. The case in question involved President Jimmy Carter's termination of a defense treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan.
What this all means is that everything that they are doing in Cuba can be considered legal by United States law even if it is a violation of Geneva COnventions by European standard.
Is it fair? Is it right? It's law, fairness and right play no part in its application.
Quote:
We are supposed to be a beacon of freedom, fairness, democracy, and justice that illuminates the world. Instead, we skulk about like the tinpot banana republic dictators we had so much practice installing and removing over the last several decades.
Fairness is a human standard that unfortunatly is taken out of context when it applies to the Government or Law. Are they following the law?Yes. Is it fair? Well what part of law is fair and how could we apply fairness without falling into favoritisms. On the other hand, who ever said we were fair? You will find a hundred years worth of "unfair" activities, need I mention our "purchase" of Texas or our "purchase" of the southwest from the Native Americans; I seem to remember something horrific called "Sullivans March" that is actually proudly marked along the east coast, mainly Route 6 that cuts through Pennsylvania.
My personal opinion,I think our lack of understanding another culture makes it hard for us to understand that they also communicate and understand things differently in more ways than just language. How many times have we, as Americans, known of someone or was that someone who spoke up louder to a non-English speaker as if increasing our tone will somehow make them understand.
Personal space is a huge issue with Americans, we all know what the 3ft bubble is and we try not to occupy it unless of course we desire someone or we desire to cause stress to someone. Personal Space is an American concept that due to our ignorance of other cultures we poorly attempt to apply it to them.
I don't think that any of this has as much to do with us as Americans being fair, just, right or beacons of Democracy so much as us being uneducated hicks.
Quote:
To date, out of literally tens of thousands of interrogations, we've got confirmation of what? a half dozen violations?
Very true but of course due to our ignorance and lack of education as a whole we take that out of context and make it out to be TEN THOUSAND POWS suffering.
We are living in a country that has a reading level of about 5th grade at best and we are giving them college level expectations. It's understood that the media takes things out of context but you still have a large portion that take everthing that medium puts out as truth rather than mearly a suggestion.
Edited, Sat Oct 8 16:54:14 2005 by niobia
Quote:
We are dealing with a country that has a reading level of 5th grade, at best and we are giving them college level expectations.
Cite, please?
The convenient but incorrect convention of viewing Iraqis as ignorant savages ignores the fact that their kids attended school (when they had schools) about as long as American kids do.
As for Sullivan's March, well, it was pretty much inevitable. The Iroquois backed the wrong horse; encouraged by the British they participated enthusiastically in kidnapping, torture and murder, and they paid for it.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I'm referring to America, I believe I led our readers down the correct path and pardon me while I use you as an example of our poor reading comprehension levels.
**Please also note you will find the previous paragraph leading you to the portion that clearly states that the topic in question, that you find difficult to grasp, is that of the American standards, or lack thereof, education.
The interrogation of the terrorists, not all of whom are Iraqi, is theoretically not kosher because they don't participate enthusiastically in torture, kidnapping and murder?
Edited, Sat Oct 8 12:54:36 2005 by niobia
**Please also note you will find the previous paragraph leading you to the portion that clearly states that the topic in question, that you find difficult to grasp, is that of the American standards, or lack thereof, education.
Quote:
The Iroquois backed the wrong horse; encouraged by the British they participated enthusiastically in kidnapping, torture and murder, and they paid for it.
The interrogation of the terrorists, not all of whom are Iraqi, is theoretically not kosher because they don't participate enthusiastically in torture, kidnapping and murder?
Edited, Sat Oct 8 12:54:36 2005 by niobia
Yes, re-reading your extremely clear, well organized and concise post, I can see how silly I was to mistake your meaning.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 182
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (182)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gitmo/Abu Ghraib and the Geneva Convention
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC