Geneva Convention and the United States

[Phuz]

If I read the convention? You've just written yourself off.
[True] or [False] - Showing video footage of POW's = violation of the convention. THANKS FOR COMING OUT.

Thats Ultra Quiet ladies and gentlemen! He'll be here all week!

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Phuz

Here's some clue training. Read more than one source for news. Read something current. The convention was not "heavily" violated. The Red Cross went in and inspected at Gitmo and changes were made but the changes were minor. Don't pick and choose the news that suits your preconceived ignorant opinion. I know it's probably overload for the two living brain cells you actually have but try real hard. You can do it (maybe). Training over. You're dimissed.

This is getting humorous. A tenth of you're refute is part of the debate, the rest is pointless personal attacks.

First, how 'current' a news source is = irrelevant.
History books that were written 20 years ago are no more valid than ones that came out yesterday.
Since when is a documents creation the definitive factor in its validity? :Q

Aired footage of the POW's in Cuba = Violation. Period.
their treatment (not that I care, I'm not out to give them a cushy bed... ) etc, many other things were VIOLATIONS of the convention, whether you like it or not.

The issues itself is not my concern... I couldn't care.
I'm not picking and choosing news. We were asked to provide proof of the U.S. infringing the Geneva convention, and that was done.
Just because you can't deal with it doesn't render the information invalid.


Edit: I don't want to debate it anymore. I've had better arguements with a brick wall. (almost a personal attack, not quote. )

You don't want to debate it anymore because you have no argument. You can't even read with any comprehension your own link. You have provided no proof of anything and just to prove your depth of knowledge on the subject you refer to the enemy combatants as POW's, a status they were never given because they do not pass the litmus test that is spelled out in the very convention that you are trying to prove was being violated. My suggestion to you is that you actually go and read the convention (I've heard reading is good) and try to do your own thinking and quite possibly form an intelligent, informed opinion instead of the ignorant drivel that you are spewing forth right now.

Where exactly does the Geneva convention say that the Taliban fighters shouldn't have been recognized as POW's? If you remember there was quite a bit of heated debate over the fact that Bush didn't grant them POW status. Here's the actual text:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

I believe the Bushite argument was that since the US didn't recognize the Taliban as a governing body, they could not officially be POW's. Well that's a cop-out and a complete disregard for the spirit of the document. The Taliban was, without a doubt, a party to the conflict at best, and a "militia" at worst, and therefore once they were captured they should have been recognized as POW's.

But beyond that, the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo (and elsewhere, as I liked above, please read...) was most certainly in direct violation with the convention.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Phuz
If I read the convention? You've just written yourself off.
[True] or [False] - Showing video footage of POW's = violation of the convention. THANKS FOR COMING OUT.

Thats Ultra Quiet ladies and gentlemen! He'll be here all week!

Yes read the convention. Here's the part that was supposedly violated since I know you're not smart enough to find it yourself:

Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Now try to argue from a position of at least partial, spoonfed knowledge instead of just puppeting what someone reads to you from a web page. Maybe, just to prove you aren't completely worthless, you can tell everyone who has the authority to determine when the GC has been violated and whether or not they have done so.

Where exactly does the Geneva convention say that the Taliban fighters shouldn't have been recognized as POW's? If you remember there was quite a bit of heated debate over the fact that Bush didn't grant them POW status. Here's the actual text:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Nice try. That's only part of the actual text. Here'e the actual text:

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Try reading the actual convention and never let truth get in the way of tryng to make a point.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Phuz

Here's some clue training. Read more than one source for news. Read something current. The convention was not "heavily" violated. The Red Cross went in and inspected at Gitmo and changes were made but the changes were minor. Don't pick and choose the news that suits your preconceived ignorant opinion. I know it's probably overload for the two living brain cells you actually have but try real hard. You can do it (maybe). Training over. You're dimissed.

This is getting humorous. A tenth of you're refute is part of the debate, the rest is pointless personal attacks.

First, how 'current' a news source is = irrelevant.
History books that were written 20 years ago are no more valid than ones that came out yesterday.
Since when is a documents creation the definitive factor in its validity? :Q

Aired footage of the POW's in Cuba = Violation. Period.
their treatment (not that I care, I'm not out to give them a cushy bed... ) etc, many other things were VIOLATIONS of the convention, whether you like it or not.

The issues itself is not my concern... I couldn't care.
I'm not picking and choosing news. We were asked to provide proof of the U.S. infringing the Geneva convention, and that was done.
Just because you can't deal with it doesn't render the information invalid.


Edit: I don't want to debate it anymore. I've had better arguements with a brick wall. (almost a personal attack, not quote. )

You don't want to debate it anymore because you have no argument. You can't even read with any comprehension your own link. You have provided no proof of anything and just to prove your depth of knowledge on the subject you refer to the enemy combatants as POW's, a status they were never given because they do not pass the litmus test that is spelled out in the very convention that you are trying to prove was being violated. My suggestion to you is that you actually go and read the convention (I've heard reading is good) and try to do your own thinking and quite possibly form an intelligent, informed opinion instead of the ignorant drivel that you are spewing forth right now.

I suggest you read Article IV of Geneva Conventions which states that:

Prisoners of war are ...
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Which clearly makes Taliban fighters Prisoners of War.

 

[CinderElmo]

In the future, you are going to see nations flow further and further from any "rules of war." What motivation does a dying regime (such as Iraq's) have to follow any set rules? As nations become more and more invincible on the battlefield in stand-up fights, regimes are going to be FORCED to employ what we would consider as dirty figthing (poison bullets to counter our advanced medicine, chemical/biological weapons to disrupt our rear areas, suicide missions, and so on). It is the same concept as people using car bombs against civilian targets - it is the recourse of the weak against the strong to cut the advantage by playing dirty. Really, what difference do any "rules" make to rogue nations? They are dead either way - so they figure they might as well do some damage in any way possible.

Rest assured, many "rogue-esque" nations are looking at the Iraq war and just thinking of ways to stop such a force as the coalition put together. It can't be done by a formal army - so they are going to the dirty book of plays to figure out a counter to the US/UK.

 

[Siwy]

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

It's selective reading on your part. Prisoners of war are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c) That of carrying arms openly;
d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They meet criteria #1, which makes #2 irrelevant.

 

[freegeeks]

The Bush administration doesn't give sh*t about international law. Kyoto and the ABM treaty are good examples

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Siwy

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

It's selective reading on your part. Prisoners of war are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c) That of carrying arms openly;
d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They meet criteria #1, which makes #2 irrelevant.

Wrong. Number 1 does not apply. There were no " Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict " because they never tried to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Number 2 is the litmus test and the Taliban fighters and Al Queda fail therefore they are "unlawful comabatants". There are tons of artcles from the legal community. It's not selective reading on my part. It is failure to comprehend and do research on yours. The independent tribunal called for should be convened and their status should be formally determined.

 

[AndrewR]

Ultra Quiet speaks loudly and accurately on the subject of unlawful combatants. Maybe we could get Don_Vito in here to discuss it further since he's an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate.

Phuz: ...the rest is pointless personal attacks.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Mean anything to you?

The Bush administration doesn't give sh*t about international law. Kyoto and the ABM treaty are good examples

Actually, they are bad examples. One is a lopsided treaty which excludes the two most populous countries in the worlda and is in danger of not being followed worldwide (I will laugh hilariously when that happens). The second is an obsolete treaty between two countries which was eliminated because the threat picture in the world has changed since it was signed. The other signatory did not protest the treaty's end to any great degree, by the way.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Siwy

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

It's selective reading on your part. Prisoners of war are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c) That of carrying arms openly;
d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They meet criteria #1, which makes #2 irrelevant.

Wrong. Number 1 does not apply. There were no " Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict " because they never tried to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Number 2 is the litmus test and the Taliban fighters and Al Queda fail therefore they are "unlawful comabatants". There are tons of artcles from the legal community. It's not selective reading on my part. It is failure to comprehend and do research on yours. The independent tribunal called for should be convened and their status should be formally determined.

Once again, selective reading. They are not "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict" BUT they are "members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces". They meet the criteria #1 which does not make #2 a litmus test since they have to belong "to one of the following categories" not to all of the following categories.

P.S. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to point out your mistake, we all make them, so keep the comprehension-like comments to yourself. There is no need for it. Thanks.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Siwy

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

It's selective reading on your part. Prisoners of war are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c) That of carrying arms openly;
d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They meet criteria #1, which makes #2 irrelevant.

Wrong. Number 1 does not apply. There were no " Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict " because they never tried to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Number 2 is the litmus test and the Taliban fighters and Al Queda fail therefore they are "unlawful comabatants". There are tons of artcles from the legal community. It's not selective reading on my part. It is failure to comprehend and do research on yours. The independent tribunal called for should be convened and their status should be formally determined.

Once again, selective reading. They are not "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict" BUT they are "members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces". They meet the criteria #1 which does not make #2 a litmus test since they have to belong "to one of the following categories" not to all of the following categories.

P.S. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to point out your mistake, we all make them, so keep the comprehension-like comments to yourself. There is no need for it. Thanks.

Evidently there is a need for it. Part 2 is how you define the "militias and volunteer groups" that are mentioned in part one. You really shouldn't try to argue about things you know nothing about and I'm tired of giving training on the GC.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Siwy

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

It's selective reading on your part. Prisoners of war are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c) That of carrying arms openly;
d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They meet criteria #1, which makes #2 irrelevant.

Wrong. Number 1 does not apply. There were no " Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict " because they never tried to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Number 2 is the litmus test and the Taliban fighters and Al Queda fail therefore they are "unlawful comabatants". There are tons of artcles from the legal community. It's not selective reading on my part. It is failure to comprehend and do research on yours. The independent tribunal called for should be convened and their status should be formally determined.

Once again, selective reading. They are not "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict" BUT they are "members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces". They meet the criteria #1 which does not make #2 a litmus test since they have to belong "to one of the following categories" not to all of the following categories.

P.S. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to point out your mistake, we all make them, so keep the comprehension-like comments to yourself. There is no need for it. Thanks.

Evidently there is a need for it. Part 2 is how you define the "militias and volunteer groups" that are mentioned in part one. You really shouldn't try to argue about things you know nothing about and I'm tired of giving training on the GC.

No. Part 2 applies only to militia operating independently of government's regular armed forces. Since Taliban was the Afghanistan's government and Party to Geneva Conventions it does not apply to them, although part 2 applies to al-Qaeda.

Even if you are right and they did not meet the criteria #1 or #2, their status still has not been formally determined, as you point out yourself in the previous post. In that case I suggest you read Article 5 which requires all detainees to be treated as POWs until a tribunal makes the determination.

 

[UltraQuiet]

No. Part 2 applies only to militia operating independently of government's regular armed forces. Since Taliban was the Afghanistan's government and Party to Geneva Conventions it does not apply to them, although part 2 applies to al-Qaeda.

Wrong. Again. Part two defines what I said it defined. The Taliban forces do not meet the requirements for being goverment forces for reasons I have already stated (that whole distinguishing themselves from civilians thing). It's all in the GC. I encourage you to read it.

Even if you are right and they did not meet the criteria #1 or #2, their status still has not been formally determined, as you point out yourself in the previous post. In that case I suggest you read Article 5 which requires all detainees to be treated as POWs until a tribunal makes the determination.

.

There's no 'if' about it. I am right. It's also obvious I've read article 5 (along with the rest of the GC) because the tribunals I mentioned are covered in that article. Again, I encourage you and everyone else to read the GC and try to form your own opinion.

 

[Siwy]

Wrong. Again. Part two defines what I said it defined. The Taliban forces do not meet the requirements for being goverment forces for reasons I have already stated (that whole distinguishing themselves from civilians thing). It's all in the GC. I encourage you to read it.

I suggest you read the article 4 again, and again until you fully understand it. Once again, your reason "that whole distinguishing themselves from civilians thing" applies only to militia operating independently of government's regular forces as stated in point #2. Therefore, it does not apply to Taliban. Which part of this don't you understand?

There's no 'if' about it. I am right. It's also obvious I've read article 5 (along with the rest of the GC) because the tribunals I mentioned are covered in that article. Again, I encourage you and everyone else to read the GC and try to form your own opinion.

If you have really read Article 5 you would know that it requires all detainees to be treated as POWs until a tribunal makes the determination. Tribunal not being US president or US administration or Secretary of Defence but independent US court.

 

[MedicBob]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fwtong
Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

Care to post some facts, or do you just want to level unfounded accusations?

Well the prolonged imprisonment and incommunicado status of I.N.S. detainees who are held without trial or charge for months are a pretty clear violation of geneva conventions.

You are incorrect. Please read the Geneva Conventions, INS cases are handled by a countries internal laws.

 

[Phuz]

AndrewR, is that the only insight you have to add to the debate? Unlawful combatants? You're not giving anyone much insentive to debate this with you. The US did wage war on Afghanistan. The American and Canadian soldiers that died in Afghanistan would certainly be a testiment to that fact. (if nothing else). Just because you're government pretends that it wasn't at war doesn't mean they were unlawful combatans.

 

[Phuz]

By choosing Guantanamo Bay, the Administration hopes to avoid, or delay access of the detainees to the Courts of the United States. The Administration can be free do things to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay things which it would be stopped by the US Courts from doing on the territory of the United States of America.

1
2
3

1 + 2 + 3 = Concentration Camp

To shed light on whether or not the Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees in Guantanamo qualify for POW status, the Crimes of War Project interviewed a number of legal experts. Most of our experts disagreed with Bush Administration. They all cited Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, which defines prisoners of war as "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." According to the Convention, members of a regular army are automatically entitled to POW status, whereas members of militias or volunteer corps must meet the following four criteria:

Having a chain of command
Wearing a uniform or some sort fixed or distinctive sign
Carrying their arms openly
Conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
Most of our experts said they believed that the Taliban fell under the first category ? that of being the regular army of Afghanistan ? and are therefore entitled to POW status.

The Bush Administration promptly announced that it did not consider the captives to be POWs, but rather "unlawful combatants." However, denying the detainees POW-status does not change the way the United States is legally obligated to treat them. Both the Geneva Conventions and human rights law mandate that that Washington treat detainees humanely regardless of whether or not they are considered to be POWs. However, by declaring that the detainees are "unlawful combatants," the Bush Administration is effectively saying that the Al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not entitled to the protections specified under the Geneva Conventions which provide them with immunity from prosecution for lawful acts of war.

Again, 'Unlawful Combatants' means ABSOLUTELY nothing, its just another catch phrase Bush coined. You know what the WORST thing about this is? You people blindly defending Campy X-Ray and the way the prisoners were treated there... do you have ANY idea what kind of a precedent this sets for future POWs of any country? God help the next American/Canadian soldier that gets captured.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Where exactly does the Geneva convention say that the Taliban fighters shouldn't have been recognized as POW's? If you remember there was quite a bit of heated debate over the fact that Bush didn't grant them POW status. Here's the actual text:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Nice try. That's only part of the actual text. Here'e the actual text:

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Try reading the actual convention and never let truth get in the way of tryng to make a point.

I quoted the actual text, and so did you. But you quoted the part that specifically proves your arument, while ignoring the part that disproves it. Who's selectively reading now? The convention says that a POW is defined as any person meeting ONE of the conditions; one of which being the one that I posted and another being the one that you posted. No, they may not meet the criteria of your selection, but they certainly meet the criteria of mine.

Practice what you preach...

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
The Bush administration doesn't give sh*t about international law. Kyoto and the ABM treaty are good examples

Kyoto? I must have missed it then when the Senate ratified that treaty. Oh, wait...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Wrong. Again. Part two defines what I said it defined. The Taliban forces do not meet the requirements for being goverment forces for reasons I have already stated (that whole distinguishing themselves from civilians thing). It's all in the GC. I encourage you to read it.

I suggest you read the article 4 again, and again until you fully understand it. Once again, your reason "that whole distinguishing themselves from civilians thing" applies only to militia operating independently of government's regular forces as stated in point #2. Therefore, it does not apply to Taliban. Which part of this don't you understand?

There's no 'if' about it. I am right. It's also obvious I've read article 5 (along with the rest of the GC) because the tribunals I mentioned are covered in that article. Again, I encourage you and everyone else to read the GC and try to form your own opinion.

If you have really read Article 5 you would know that it requires all detainees to be treated as POWs until a tribunal makes the determination. Tribunal not being US president or US administration or Secretary of Defence but independent US court.

I suppose Ultra Quiet failed to levy one additional requirement for the contrarians here. Not only do you have to read the Geneva Conventions, you must also understand them.

Plainly stated, the reason why the criteria listed in Article 4 (A)(2) is applicable even though allegedly the Taliban fighters were part "... of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict" is because it is IMPLIED that members of the regular armed forces will also exhibit the exact same characteristics (command structure, recognized uniform, bearing arms openly, following LOAC). Don't just look at the words, look at the structure.

Since Art. 4 (A)(2) is used to define when "other militias" who are NOT part of the armed forces are considered to be treated as if they were part of the armed forces, the criteria are obviously listed to clarify how one would recognize when personnel are acting like regular armed forces. Ergo, if the armed forces themselves do not meet the criteria listed, they are not acting as regular armed forces.

Here is an article from the Council on Foreign Relations which also has some information on the definition of armed forces and discusses the distinction between regular armed forces and unlawful combatants. Before anyone doubts the politics of the COFR, it is headed by Zoe Baird who was Clinton's first choice for Attorney General and served under President Carter as well.

Further, the term "unlawful combatants" was not a phrase coined by the Bush administration as a certain uninformed individual has declared. The term has been an acceptable legal definition after being in the Ex Parte Quirin case in the United States Supreme Court in 1942. Lastly, Here is a piece written by Michael C. Dorf, Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University, which supports the assertion by the Bush administration that both al'Qaida and the Taliban are unlawful combatants.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fwtong
Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

Care to post some facts, or do you just want to level unfounded accusations?

Well the prolonged imprisonment and incommunicado status of I.N.S. detainees who are held without trial or charge for months are a pretty clear violation of geneva conventions.

no prisioners of war have rights, these are not POWs--they dont have a country. And if thats the best argument that you have of our "grave" violations of the genva convention; whereas, the enemies of ours use homicide bombers, human shields, executions, showing off POWs, and faking surrenders only to ambush then you my friend need to take a step back are rethink your positition. Comapred to other countries we are a saint during war and treatment to POWs, combatants, and civilians.

 

[konichiwa]

...If everyone else is doing it, why can't we...

Just because they do it doesn't make it okay for us to do it as well. I do not suggest that other countries aren't violating the geneva conventions (as well as others), and certainly more gravely than we are, but that does not mean we should allow our violations to go unchallenged.

You seem to have a problem with reading an entire thread -- there are plenty more examples of Geneva violations farhter up in the thead.

 

[Phuz]

no prisioners of war have rights, these are not POWs--they dont have a country.

WRONG. If you had actually read the whole thread (my post specifically).

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To shed light on whether or not the Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees in Guantanamo qualify for POW status, the Crimes of War Project interviewed a number of legal experts. Most of our experts disagreed with Bush Administration. They all cited Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, which defines prisoners of war as "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." According to the Convention, members of a regular army are automatically entitled to POW status, whereas members of militias or volunteer corps must meet the following four criteria:

Having a chain of command
Wearing a uniform or some sort fixed or distinctive sign
Carrying their arms openly
Conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
Most of our experts said they believed that the Taliban fell under the first category ? that of being the regular army of Afghanistan ? and are therefore entitled to POW status.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Siwy]

I suppose Ultra Quiet failed to levy one additional requirement for the contrarians here. Not only do you have to read the Geneva Conventions, you must also understand them.

Plainly stated, the reason why the criteria listed in Article 4 (A)(2) is applicable even though allegedly the Taliban fighters were part "... of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict" is because it is IMPLIED that members of the regular armed forces will also exhibit the exact same characteristics (command structure, recognized uniform, bearing arms openly, following LOAC). Don't just look at the words, look at the structure.

Since Art. 4 (A)(2) is used to define when "other militias" who are NOT part of the armed forces are considered to be treated as if they were part of the armed forces, the criteria are obviously listed to clarify how one would recognize when personnel are acting like regular armed forces. Ergo, if the armed forces themselves do not meet the criteria listed, they are not acting as regular armed forces.

4(A)(2) states that: "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:"

I fail to see in this statement where it is "implied that members of the regular armed forces will also exhibit the exact same characteristic." You're simply misunderstanding this statement and looking for hidden meanings that do not exist.

Here is an article <http://www.terrorismanswers.com/responses/detainees.html> from the Council on Foreign Relations which also has some information on the definition of armed forces and discusses the distinction between regular armed forces and unlawful combatants. Before anyone doubts the politics of the COFR, it is headed by Zoe Baird who was Clinton's first choice for Attorney General and served under President Carter as well.

Further, the term "unlawful combatants" was not a phrase coined by the Bush administration as a certain uninformed individual has declared. The term has been an acceptable legal definition after being in the Ex Parte Quirin case in the United States Supreme Court in 1942. Lastly, Here is a piece <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html> written by Michael C. Dorf, Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University, which supports the assertion by the Bush administration that both al'Qaida and the Taliban are unlawful combatants.

These articles make the mistake of selective reading. They for some reason concentrate on criteria 4(A)(2) without even mentioning criteria 4(A)(1) to which the detainees belong to. Here is an article for you to chew on from Human Rights Watch that states very clearly why detainees meet the requirement for POW status. And here is another for a good measure from Amnesty International.

I hope you agree that these sources are a bit less biased. I wouldn't consider a member of a previous US Administration an unbiased source since it is the US Administration itself that mistreats the detainees. And as for that lawyer guy, well, I've never heard of him

 

[freegeeks]

Kyoto? I must have missed it then when the Senate ratified that treaty. Oh, wait...

Fair enough

What about the ABM treaty?