Martlet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Correct. The Geneva Conventions don't apply to stateless terrorist members. Many of the insurgents fall into that class. It could also be argued that they don't apply to those that refuse to follow them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 The Geneva Conventions don't apply to stateless terrorist members. Bush likes to tell the American people that we're at war, but the enemy is not a regular army of a state --so Geneva doesn't apply. If most of the detainees rounded up were innocent Iraqi citizens, then they're not "stateless terrorist members." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 not true bucko... if they are not wearing a uniform they are not allowed to be protected under the geneva convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 not true bucko... if they are not wearing a uniform they are not allowed to be protected under the geneva convention. And there's that. Good info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 nor if they are snipers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 So, you're asserting that unless prisoners were captured in uniform we can do whatever we feel like to them? That's complete bullshit. Put aside your hollywood knowledge of the Geneva Convention and read the document: 1. 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: (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) Taking of hostages; © Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) 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. 2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The people detained are either military or civilians, and either way they are protected. There is not a special class of "suspected terrorist" that abrogates all legal and moral protections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 not true bucko... if they are not wearing a uniform they are not allowed to be protected under the geneva convention. Clearly I miscommunicated my point. I didn't mean to imply that the Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees at Abu Ghraib ...but rather to point out that they are mostly not "stateless terrorists." The larger point is that the practices that got us in trouble at Abu G came about because there were no standards at all governing the treatment of detainees. The reason there's so much shit on Bush and Dumsfeld's shoes is that they are responsible for the handling of their misguided war, no matter how hard they try to dodge that responsbility. This is clear to the majority of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 nor if they are snipers... The US has snipers. Are you suggesting that it would appropriate for them to be mutilated and hung from a bridge, since you believe snipers wouldn't be protected under the Geneva Convention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 (edited) 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: 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, fulfil 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; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Read more than the first 2 sentences hommes. note B and D... well actually all 4 Edited May 11, 2004 by scott_harpell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 not true bucko... if they are not wearing a uniform they are not allowed to be protected under the geneva convention. bullshit! 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: 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, fulfil 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; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. [...] 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. article 5 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil 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; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. they fulfil either one or none of these qualifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 The people detained are either military or civilians, and either way they are protected. There is not a special class of "suspected terrorist" that abrogates all legal and moral protections. There wasn't then, but there is surely something different now. I think the GC Article you were actually looking for is this one: 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: 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, fulfil 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; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. 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. 5. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 1) They are not ersponsible to any commander 2) They have no fixed sign visible at a distance or within 3 feet for that matter 3) Strapping Bombs to your body is hardly open arms 4) They are violating the customs of war. Really... they have to meet all 4 criteria... but have failed to meet 1 or two at the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil 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; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. they fulfil either one or none of these qualifications. they fulfill these conditions as well. weren't these people carrying weapons when arrested? and don't forget article 5: "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 They have to meet all 4 criteria not just one... and to meet the 4th article criteria... they need to be able to prove it... that is why it says they must show identification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 plu as you said they are carrying guns... they cannot claim 4th article if they are carrying guns in a combat zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 they fulfill these conditions as well. Who is their commander? What is their sign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 1) They are not ersponsible to any commander they aren't? how do you know? 2) They have no fixed sign visible at a distance or within 3 feet for that matter isn't carrying and pointing a weapon at you from a distance a visible sign? 3) Strapping Bombs to your body is hardly open arms are the people in jails the same as the one strapping bombs to their bodies? do you have any evidence? 4) They are violating the customs of war. same as above Really... they have to meet all 4 criteria... but have failed to meet 1 or two at the most. most of them meet all four criteria or are civilians resisting invasion (clearly mentionned as pows). for the rest, you can't prove they don't meet the above criteria, except for a very small few. in which case article 5 applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Who is their leader? No, aiming a gun is not a sign. The burden of proof is on them as is stated in the convention 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. even failing one clause means you are ineligible... they have NO sign and NO leader. As for the 4th article... it says the burden of proof is on them and they are required to cary identification as proof they are non-combatants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Who is their leader? i don't know. how do you know they don't have a leader? the people picked up in afghanistan obviously had leaders. so do those in iraq. No, aiming a gun is not a sign. i agree that the issue of a sign is ambiguous. still your argument is no different than that of the germans w.r.t. the resistance in italy, france, etc ... The burden of proof is on them as is stated in the convention 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. you take the quote out of context. the above refers to journalists, supply contractors, etc ... on the contrary as shown in article 5, the burden of proof is on a competent tribunal, not the war department of the invading country during the course of an illegal war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 again... that is only for article #4 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. That is if there is doubt. There is little doubt that someone not wearing a sign and shooting at you is not a journalist OR a protected POW militant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 The leader is required to be accountable for his subordinates... I.E. if they screw up and he knows about it his ass is on the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 That is if there is doubt. There is little doubt that someone not wearing a sign and shooting at you is not a journalist OR a protected POW militant. if there is doubt, only a competent tribunal can decide. in the meantime, they get the benefit of the doubt. the rest is ad-lib on your part. but more fundamentally why the double standard? guerilla armies may not wear uniforms, but regular armies often shoot or bomb civilians which isn't conform to the laws and custom of warfare. would you deny such armies the benefit of the pow status? let's face it, it's a question of humanity. using your enemies' failure to be human to commit inhuman acts of your own (such as torture of prisoners and shooting into crowds of demonstrators) is not advantageous to anybody's cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 The leader is required to be accountable for his subordinates... I.E. if they screw up and he knows about it his ass is on the line. this still does not show they don't have leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 The leader is required to be accountable for his subordinates... I.E. if they screw up and he knows about it his ass is on the line. this still does not show they don't have leaders. Ok, stop holding us in suspense! Who's their leader? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.