Geneva Convention and the United States

[AndrewR]

Damn it, wouldn't you know that I had a lengthly response that never posted. Oh well, I'll try to redo it.

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.

I am not misunderstanding the text of the document -- it's called legal analysis. I did go to law school so I do know how to read statutes more than the average person. I understand where HRW and Amnesty are coming from, but I think their analytical reading of the text is clouded by their ideology.

The reason why those four criteria are listed is to establish that the militia groups operating outside of the armed forces of the state are acting just like the armed forces. What does it mean to be an army for a political state? You have a command structure, wear a uniform, carry weapons, and follow the Law of Armed Conflict. Doesn't that sound like the definition of an organized military? These aren't hidden meanings; they are common sense! Otherwise, a group would only have to "declare" themselves associated with the regular armed forces to evade being classified as an unlawlful combatant.

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.

The reason they are concentrating on 4(A)(2) is because those criteria apply to determining who qualifies 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". If there are no criteria to determine how one falls under those categories, is it just by declaration? If so, then why have criteria under 4(A)(2) when someone could just declare otherwise? I looked for a definition of "armed forces" and found none in many different documents. Could it be that the definition is in 4(A)(2)? I think so.

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

I will not agree that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are less biased. Quite the opposite. The reason why I mentioned Ms. Baird's history is to show that her political affiliation would, if anything, run counter to what was found on her organization's website, since it favors the Bush administration (and she has no love for Republicans, I'm sure, since she was prevented from becoming Attorney General by them). As for "that lawyer guy", he's the Vice Dean of one of the most respected law schools in the country. Since this is a legal question, I'd say an established lawyer at a prestigious law school has some credibility when discussing the topic, no?

What about the ABM treaty?

The Soviet Union does not exist anymore.

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

Phuz: Why don't you respond to the articles which I posted, specifically the second one by the Columbia law professor? Further, I am very disappointed to have had to make you eat crow with your comment regarding the phrase "unlawful combatant". Would you like fries with that?

 

[Alistar7]

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!

So what US govt Station viewed this footage, I never even knew the govt had complete control over their very owns news organizations. Thanks for the info


Al-queeda was not part of an internal millitia, they wore no unifrom, diplayed no rank, followed no rules of war, had no discernible chain of command, they were TERRORISTS, not POW's.

By all acounts they have been treated well, far better than they would have been under the system of justice the are accustomed too.