| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30430 Activity:insanely high |
5/26 Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20589,filter.all/news_detail.asp
\_ This whole thing is very academic to me. All I really care about
is did the various abuses the prisoners underwent result in new
intelligence that saved lives or did it not? If it saved lives
then whatever if some dude was naked in front of some chick or
had to wear panties on his head.
\_ saved whose lives? every darn torturer would claim that their
torturing is for some greater cause.
\_ Saved American lives. I don't care about any others if it
means a dead American. And no, some torture is pure sadism.
Some is to get information.
\_ If you don't care about Iraqi lives, why are you in Iraq?
For the oil?
\_ American lives >> Iraqi lives >> terrorist rights not
to wear panties on head. Oil is a dead energy source.
The amount being pumped from major sources around the
world has been shrinking the last few years and it's
getting harder and harder to get what's left. They're
pushing the fields too hard and damaging some of them
as we speak and going back 3-5 years in some places.
Fighting for oil is stupid. If that was all it was
about, the money was better spent doing fusion research
and building nuclear power plants. If enriching GWB's
friends was the point, the money was better spent on
research and nuke plants and it would've made for better
polling numbers, too. When I'm elected, that's the way
it'll be. And yes, we'll continue spending money on
space exploration in a big way, too. Lack of progress
in science = death.
\_ Also on this site: Democrats cause cancer.
\_ Is that why they hate America?
\_ Why do you hate white people?
\_ There are so many deceptions, errors of reason and outright
falsehoods in this article that it is hard to decide where to
begin, but I will start by saying the Geneva Convention applies
to the signers no matter what the "other" side does. There is
no provision for being released from it if the other side
violates some provision of it, for reasons that should be
violates some part of it, for reasons that should be
obvious if you think about it for half a second.
\_ Wrong! Have you even read the Convention, or are you
paraphrasing a http://commondreams.org article?
\_ Is it so hard for you to just post the relevant sections or
a link?
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases
of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may
arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties,
even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or
total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting
Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed
resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party
to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties
thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in
relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and
applies the provisions thereof."
The second-to-the-last sentence is ambiguous and sets in
motion the debate as to whether a signer is obliged to abide
by the conventions when not in conflict with another signer.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
\_ And if you bothered to continue to article 4 you
would instantly recognize you are a complete moron.
Why do I bother arguing with someone who hasn't
even read the thing????
\_ Show me what part of article 4 applies. Quote
the specific passage. Article 4 just defines
what a Prisoner Of War is. It does not deal
with being released from the provisions of
the GC. I think you are reaching.
\_ You haven't figured out that this was whole
point of Yoo's article? Let me spell it out
very simply: the Geneva Convention applies
to POWs, classification as a POW requires
that the individual satisfy several
preconditions articulated in article 4. Why
do you think every subsequent part and section
begins with some reference to "prisoner of
war"? The title of the the document is
"Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the
Treatment of PRISONERS OF WAR"
Is this a troll - are you feigning
stupidity?
\_ Doesn't GC cover non-combatants as well?
When did we declare the entire population
enemy combatants? How does a democracy of
combatants work?
\_ GCIV covers non-combatants. Resume Fight!
\_ GCIV covers non-combatants.
GCIII covers POWs. Resume fight! *ding*
\_ So when the red cross reports that 70-90%
of those held were not combatants, did
nothing requiring detainment, how the hell
does that jive wth the GCs? Also, see
III4A.6
\_ Most of the world doesn't even accept the
whole "enemy combatant" designation as
a valid category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
\_ Motd. It's like Usenet, but more so.
\_ I have obviously read and understood more of it than you.
\_ John Yoo, Boalt professor, sponsor of both the Patriot Act
and non-GC treatment in Afghanistan. Clerked under Thomas.
Descriptions of what counts as "torture" under federal law. Yay!
"It's fair to say that Berkeley is liberal and Boalt Hall is a very
liberal law school. I wouldn't say I've ever had any problems with
my colleagues. Almost all of them disagree with me, but are
respectful of my ideas. They're more interested in debating rather
than disregarding my beliefs."
\_ impressive pedigree but unfortunately he is a statist.
\_ Just goes to show that no matter how much of a right-wing
extremist you are, there is always someone worse.
\_ Right wing, bad! Left wing, center! Good! Yes! W00t!
AARRRRARRRARRRARAAARRRRGGHGHHHG!!!! -- your guy last fall
\_ Again, when the right reaches for stuff this weak, you
know they know their boy's in trouble this November. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.aei.org/news/newsID.20589,filter.all/news_detail.asp In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, critics are arguing that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war. Human rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of POWs under the Geneva Conventions. Critics, no doubt, will soon demand that reforms include an extension of Geneva standards to interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda. It ignores the unique demands of the war on terrorism and the advantages that a facility such as Guantanamo can provide. It urges policymakers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks. Punishing abuse in Iraq should not return the US to Sept. It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the US and Iraq. President Bush and his commanders announced early in the conflict that the Conventions applied. Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention, which applies to prisoners of war clearly state that: "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." This provision would prohibit some interrogation methods that could be used in American police stations. The armed forces have long operated a system designed to investigate violations of the laws of war, and ultimately to try and punish the offenders. And it is important to let the military justice system run its course. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." A response to criminal action by individual soldiers should begin with the military justice system, rather than efforts to impose a one-size-fits-all policy to cover both Iraqi saboteurs and al Qaeda operatives. That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the Conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war. As a result, interrogations of detainees captured in the war on terrorism are not regulated under Geneva. This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law. Nonetheless, Congress's definition of torture in those laws--the infliction of severe mental or physical pain--leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation. Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating. The reasons to deny Geneva status to terrorists extend beyond pure legal obligation. The primary enforcer of the laws of war has been reciprocal treatment: We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans. If anything, the murders of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl declare al Qaeda's intentions to kill even innocent civilian prisoners. Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs. It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists. Al Qaeda operates by launching surprise attacks on civilian targets with the goal of massive casualties. Our only means for preventing future attacks, which could use WMDs, is by acquiring information that allows for pre-emptive action. It makes little sense to deprive ourselves of an important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks while we are still in the middle of a fight to the death with al Qaeda. Applying different standards to al Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the US faces a stateless enemy never contemplated by the Conventions. This means that the US can pursue different interrogation policies in each location. In fact, Abu Ghraib highlights the benefits of Guantanamo. We can guess that the unacceptable conduct of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib resulted in part from the dangerous state of affairs on the ground in a theater of war. American soldiers had to guard prisoners on the inside while receiving mortar and weapons fire from the outside. By contrast, Guantanamo is distant from any battlefield, making it far more secure. The naval station's location means the military can base more personnel there and devote more resources to training and supervision. A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages. The Justices are currently considering a case, argued last month, which seeks to extend the writ of habeas corpus to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo. If the Court were to extend its reach to the base, judges could begin managing conditions of confinement, interrogation methods, and the use of information. Not only would this call on the courts to make judgments and develop policies for which they have no expertise, but the government will be encouraged to keep its detention facilities in the theater of conflict. Judicial over-confidence in intruding into war decisions could produce more Abu Ghraibs in dangerous combat zones, and remove our most effective means of preventing future terrorist attacks. John Yoo is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda. It urges policymakers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks." |
| www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm The Avalon Project Normandy Sabbath - Lawrence Beal Smith, 1944 : Courtesy o f the US Army Center of Military History at Yale Law School Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; Convention concluded at Geneva on July 27, 1929 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, have agreed as follows: PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. ARTICLE 2 In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. ARTICLE 3 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 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: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. ARTICLE 4 A Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 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. 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: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 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. B The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. C This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. ARTICLE 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. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of prisoners of war, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them. Prisoners of war shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict. ARTICLE 7 Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be. ARTICLE 8 The present Convention shall be applied with the cooperation and under the scrutiny of the Protecting Powers whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of the Parties to the conflict. For this purpose, the Protecting Powers may appoint, apart from their diplomatic or consular staff, delegates from amongst their own nationals or the nationals of other neutral Powers. The said delegates shall be subject to the approval of the Power with which they are to carry out their duties. The Parties to the conflict shall facilitate to the greatest extent possible the task of the representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers. The representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall not in any case exceed ... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." Second Hague Convention of 1899 defined the requirements for combatants to be eligible for treatment as prisoners of war. "Article 1 The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: 1 To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war." Those terms thus divide people in a war zone into two classes, each of which is further subdivided into two. There are first armies and militias and then those not in armies and militias. Those in armies and militias have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. The distinction of combatant and non-combatant is then applied. Those in armies and militias, whether combatant or non-combatant have the right to be treated as prisoners of war. For example, an army chaplain or doctor is a non-combatant, whereas an ordinary soldier is a combatant. For those outside of armies and militias, by convention known as civilians, the right of being treated as a prisoner of war does not apply. However, the definition of combatant then becomes critical. A civilian who is a non-combatant is not eligible for the protections of prisoner of war status, but is eligible for protection under other statutes. Those are, for example, not being deliberately targeted by military action and other traditional protections. A civilian who is a combatant on the other hand has neither the protection of being able to be a prisoner of war, nor the protection of being a civilian non-combatant. Protected persons Those not eligible for prisoner of war status are called protected persons. They are defined as follows: 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. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, Art. 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. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, Art. They have, however, been frequently used at least since the beginning of the last century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. The connotations given to these terms and their consequences for the applicable protection regime are not always very clear. In the US the term unlawful combatant, critics maintain, has mainly been used to deny detainees basic civil rights, such as the right to a counsellor, a speedy trial and right of appeal. Sweden, have intervened to limit the degree to which the rights of their nationals have been suspended. In general this has been handled on a case-by-case basis as numbers are few. Many governments and human rights organizations worry that the introduction of the unlawful combatant status sets a dangerous precedent for other regimes to follow. |
| commondreams.org -> www.commondreams.org/ On One Issue, John Kerry is No Alternative to George Bush: Both of Them Embrace Ariel Sharon... From Uranium and Coal to Wind - A Renewable Future for the Seventh Generation... Camilo Mejia Goes to Prison for His Stance Against the War in Iraq, While a Campaign to Free Camilo Begins... The National Lawyers Guild Condemns Georgia's Declaration of State of Emergency for G-8 Summit Meeting... War Resisters League to Honor Fernando Suarez of Military Families Speak Out... Human Rights Watch: Algeria Should Not Support Immunity for US Soldiers: Ahead of UN Resolution on Iraq, US Tries to Exclude Its Troops from Prosecution... |