[mountaindrew]

I was hearing today how the administraiton is argueing that the geneva convention does not aply to our detainees because they are not prisoners of war because they were not "uniform wearing members of a state militia"
Now make up your minds guys! Either we are at war and the prisoners we take in said war are prisoners of war, or we are not at war at all.
These guy keep telling us we are at war when they need approval for whatever money of support they need, but then they want immuity from international rules of war that WE were instrumental in creating. Where is the cosistancy?

[Thumper]

I agree with the administration on many things, but not this. See my sigline.

[Sean Smith]

I was hearing today how the administraiton is argueing that the geneva convention does not aply to our detainees because they are not prisoners of war because they were not "uniform wearing members of a state militia"

Now make up your minds guys! Either we are at war and the prisoners we take in said war are prisoners of war, or we are not at war at all.
These guy keep telling us we are at war when they need approval for whatever money of support they need, but then they want immuity from international rules of war that WE were instrumental in creating. Where is the cosistancy?

Have you actually READ the Geneva Conventions? Because they are written in such a way that different categories of people get different protection (e.g. civilians, soldiers in uniform, etc.). Also, "protection" under the conventions depends on the conduct of the person captured, not just if a state of war exists.

So it is entirely possible that various persons captured by the U.S. military do not meet the standards set in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and so are not protected under it. That isn't "immunity from international laws of war," that is applying them as they are written.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The most obviously relevant point being:

6. 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.

... Which wouldn't involve, say, beheading civilians on video.

[mountaindrew]

The mistake that you and all the other individuals that I hear justifying our torture of prisoners by citing thier torture of prisoners make is that the people that are torturing our guys are still loose while we torure other guys. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the crime of one Iraqi should be punished upon another, unrelated person. If you agree with that, than they can justify torturing/killing other americans because of the offences prepetrated by a group of other americans and the cycle never ends. If America is really the good guys (and I do believe we are,) than we must take The High Road. Not stoop to thier level.

[WT]

It is my understanding that the President announced that the Geneva Conventions will apply in Iraq. The conventions will also apply in Afghanistan to those in the Taliban. It will not apply to Al Qaida.

[Destructo6]

Now make up your minds guys! Either we are at war and the prisoners we take in said war are prisoners of war, or we are not at war at all.
We are at war with many groups who do not abide by the Geneva Convention.

In order to enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention, one must live up to the responsibilities set forth in the same document. It is they who want it both ways.

Fighting in civillian garb is specifically prohibited. Get caught fighting in civvies, you are a saboteur, not a POW, and not entitled to Geneva protections.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.


Art. 5. Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:


In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance.
Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them.
Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government.
Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism.
A combatant who has surrendered becomes a prisoner of war.

A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws (if any). In practice they may be tortured or executed.

[mountaindrew]

Well, that makes some sence, but the administration has already argued that civilian law Doesn't apply to our detainees. I just seems like they have created for themselves a gray arey in which they dont have to follow ANY rule or laws. I am VERY wary of a government which decides that it dosn't have to follow rules. Checks and balances are there to keep those in power in line. A power without any checks can be very dangerous indeed. If they can mistreat some with impunity, they can mistreat others later, untill they mistreat us.

[mercedesrules]

War is terrible, stupid and to be avoided, but having a set of rules for it is utopian and downright silly. :rolleyes:

MR

[CannibalCrowley]

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

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. I don't recall any tribunals taking place and until then they're protected as POWs.
Art. 17 Paragraph 4
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Let's compare this with the approved methods.
Generals in a labyrinth of blame (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/14/1084289882447.html) An extraordinary list of the "rules of engagement" for interrogations in Iraq, signed by the top US general there, Ricardo Sanchez, was handed to senators this week. While it states that the Geneva Convention applies under Sanchez's command, the rules included "Stress Positions", "Presence of Mil(itary) Working Dogs", isolation of prisoners for longer than 30 days, sensory deprivation that would allow prisoners to be hooded for three days and unexplained "approved approaches" such as "Fear Up Harsh" and "Fear Up Mild". The very act of interrogation is against the Geneva Convention. Not only do they admit to interrorgating people, their "approved methods " also go against international law. The Convention Against Torture defines torture as Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. (Convention, Article 1.) Was suffering caused, yes but some may argue whether it was "severe." But intimidation and coercion were definitely present.

[throwweight]

Mountaindrew,

I appreciate your optimistic point of view regarding the need for us to behave in a civilized manner. The sad fact is, though, that our enemies will continue to decapitate, disfigure, disembowel, mutilate and otherwise torture, disrespect and horrendously abuse their captives AND their captives corpses whether we play fair or not. Just this week, along with the atrocity of the videotaped beheading of Mr. Berg, there was a related story of the mutlation of Israeli soldier's corpses by Palestinian Jihadists whose stated intention is to trade body parts for the release of their captive terrorist bretheren. These animals eagerly play this game unconsequated while the world points it's finger accusingly at the US for some minor maltreatment of some Iraqi detainees. I've seen worse behavior during rush week at the college frat house. The jihadists are playing for keeps. It's time that everyone realized that and that we respond accordingly.

[seeker_two]

If we'd just stop all this silliness about taking prisoners & just kill them ALL on the battlefield, we wouldn't have to worry about this mess....:banghead:

[Sean Smith]

The mistake that you and all the other individuals that I hear justifying our torture of prisoners by citing thier torture of prisoners make is that the people that are torturing our guys are still loose while we torure other guys. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the crime of one Iraqi should be punished upon another, unrelated person. If you agree with that, than they can justify torturing/killing other americans because of the offences prepetrated by a group of other americans and the cycle never ends. If America is really the good guys (and I do believe we are,) than we must take The High Road. Not stoop to thier level.

You missed my point. I wasn't saying the bad guys acting up justifies our bad behavior. I was EXPLAINING THE LAW TO YOU. Try not reading stuff into my posts that isn't there. If you go and read my posts elsewhere, you will note that I call for the court martial of anyone involved with abusing Iraqi prisoners and giving them long prison terms... or even executing them, depending on the offense.

Read the LAW again:

6. 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.

Sawing civilian prisoners' heads off with swords is just an example of not respecting "the laws and customs of war." The Geneva Conventions have that caveat, not me. Who the Geneva Conventions apply to is a legal question, not a moral one, and it is unwise to confuse the two.

-You can completely ignore the existence of the Geneva Conventions and still treat captives humanely.
-You can be a signatory to the Conventions and follow them to the letter, and still exploit loopholes to torment your captives.

[Sean Smith]

The very act of interrogation is against the Geneva Convention.

That is pure nonsense. The Geneva Conventions do not prohibit
asking people questions. :rolleyes:

Was suffering caused, yes but some may argue whether it was "severe." But intimidation and coercion were definitely present.

And you are misreading the convention against torture. To qualify as torture it must inflict "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." The mere fact that somebody is intimidated does not mean they were tortured under the conventions.

Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>

Merely making somebody uncomfrotable or anxious is not coercion. Telling someone, "tell us what we want to know or we let the dogs eat you" is coercion. Having someone bring a dog in the room and feed it Milk Bones while you talk to a prisoner is not.

[DMF]

War? The US hasn't been to war since the Japanese surrendered in 1945. Lest you all forget the Executive Branch can't declare war, only Congress can. Something they haven't seen fit to do since WWII.

[mountaindrew]

Sean, my point was that you were using the beheading as an act that applied them to article 6 (from your post), while obviously those in our prisons weren't the ones who commited the beheadings. Those people deserve punishment (of the worst kind) but they are still free ( as far as I know.) I am not saying that we should let everyone go or anything silly like that, just that we need to not sink to the level of those we are fighting. The greatesth thing about America in my opinion, is that we (usually) Stick to a higher moral standard than our enemies. We should fight this war. We should do what we have to to secure safety. But we need to make sure that we dont cross the line to the "Dark Side", so to say. We are the good guys. We need to remember that.

P.S. Sean If I missinterpreted your post, appologies are due. If, on the other hand I simply took it out of context ( your other posts, history, ect..) than pehaps it is because the context wasn't there. I don't as a matter of course research the history of every poster on this board who responds to a post of mine. I agree with you on the court marshalling of those involved. I simply disagree with making excuses for them or thier actions.

[Sean Smith]

P.S. Sean If I missinterpreted your post, appologies are due.

You sure seem determined to do so. :rolleyes:

Quoting myself (with emphasis added):

Sawing civilian prisoners' heads off with swords is just an example of not respecting "the laws and customs of war."

Who the Geneva Conventions apply to is a legal question, not a moral one, and it is unwise to confuse the two.

[mountaindrew]

"-You can completely ignore the existence of the Geneva Conventions and still treat captives humanely.
-You can be a signatory to the Conventions and follow them to the letter, and still exploit loopholes to torment your captives."


Both of these are very true. I would just choose the first option if i had the choice.

[telomerase]

If we'd just stop all this silliness about taking prisoners & just kill them ALL on the battlefield, we wouldn't have to worry about this mess....

Brilliant. Formerly, the Iraqi "army" cut and ran at the first opportunity; the "war" cost many fewer casualties than our "peace". But if we adopt your policy, then our future opponents will all fight to the last man, actually fire their weapons, possibly even aim, etc.

Armies don't take prisoners because they're such nice guys, they do it because it works. Even Genghis Khan took prisoners most of the time.

[telomerase]

Are we at WAR or aren't we?

Not according to the Constitution; Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. We're just engaged in piracy, or something... but I don't think that abandoning the Geneva convention is very smart even for pirates.

[westex]

When the superbowl is over do people remember who won or which team had the fewest penalties during the year?

[Destructo6]

Armies don't take prisoners because they're such nice guys, they do it because it works. Even Genghis Khan took prisoners most of the time.
His grandson, Hulegu, sure didn't, in Iraq no less. Well, to be more accurate, if a city resisted, as did Baghdad, he slaughtered every Muslim (not Christian or Jew), including the last Abbasid Caliph in 1258. It worked marvelously. So much so, that the Assassins surrendered without a fight.
Not according to the Constitution; Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. We're just engaged in piracy, or something... but I don't think that abandoning the Geneva convention is very smart even for pirates.
Except for the tiny fact that Congress approved of this action. Oops, we're not supposed to bring that up, are we?

[DMF]

Except for the tiny fact that Congress approved of this action. Oops, we're not supposed to bring that up, are we?Bring it up all you want, but it still doesn't make it a war. Approving the use of the military is NOT the same as declaring war. You will notice that Congress was careful to distinguish between them when drafting 50USC1541. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/33/sections/section_1541.html

"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief
to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1)
a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3)
a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

[Marshall]

If they wore a damn military uniform to where we could tell who is whom, I would be happy to apply the Geneva Convention to them.

[JimP]

Mountain Dew - Please explain to me your statement that we "torture people". Please keep in mind that I am getting ready to head back there for the 3rd time so I'm a little familar with the situation. From where do you get your information, the New York Times?? A humiliating photo is NOT torture.

[Destructo6]

specific statutory authorization
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

[DMF]

Destructo6, I never said that the Executive branch didn't have statutory authority, but that is NOT the same thing as a declaration of war.

[Grey54956]

Regardless of whether the prisoners are saboteurs, insurgents, or militia, their treatment at our military's hands is inexcusable. It doesn't matter whether the rules of the Geneva convention apply to them or not. What matters is the honor of the United States. Not only were war crimes committed, but these crimes are a slap in the face to all right thinking Americans.

Shame on us.

[Destructo6]

Destructo6, I never said that the Executive branch didn't have statutory authority, but that is NOT the same thing as a declaration of war.
I don't recall saying Congress declared war. My response was initially directed at the idiotic "piracy" charge.

Congress approved military action against another country. I believe open combat between two countries falls under the definition, even if Congress didn't use the word "war" in their authorization.
Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3

[Coronach]

Closed as OT.

Please read:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82260

Thank you,

Coronach