Geneve Conventions

[fenderfour]

Sorry if this is repost. The first one didn't seem to stick.

 

I keep hearing this or that about the geneva connventions, so I did a little research. By a little research, I mean reading the Geneva conventions.

 

First of all, I was wondering if the "abuse" was really against the Geneva conventions. It all seemed like college fraternity hazing to me. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be piled up naked with 20 of my closest combatant friends, but I probably not going to be scarred for life.

 

"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 any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. "

 

The GC specifically states that acts of humiliation or personal or religious debasement are against the law.

 

Ok, now that's out of the way, I wanted to know who was covered by the GC. Since the most of the people in the prisons are Not official Iraqi military, I wasn't so sure that they are covered. As it turns out, almost anyone fighting in a declared war is covered. That is, everyone who abides by the GC.

 

"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."

 

 

Interesting... So only fighters who observe the GC is covered by the GC... Are the insurgents following the GC? After multiple attacks on civilians and the killing of coalition POW's and more specifically the Nick Berg situation, I didn't think that they were.

 

More specifically:

"Article 3

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;"

 

Legally speaking, the US does not have to follow the Geneva Conventions, and it has little to do with a proclamation from the White House. It's all in the GC. So this whole thing becomes an argument regarding the moral high ground. The US shouldn't lower themselves to their level.

 

Why doesn't the western press hoot and holler about the treatment of the Coalition prisoners by the insurgents? We have reports of torture and murder from when Jessica Lynch was recovered. We have had servicemen drug through the streets and publicly mutilated. Is it because the Iraqis, and as an extension, the insurgents are free from any wrongdoing just because the US and the West were the aggressors?

 

I have also heard a lot of arguments regarding the treatment of the prisoners and the cultural affect it has on them. Sure, this kind of treatment happens in the US and it can be considered a cruel joke, but in a Middle Eastern country, it is absolutely dehumanizing. If we can't truly understand their standpoint, what makes us think that they understand our laws? Maybe we should use their laws instead. If we started observing the laws of Sharia, life (or the lack thereof) would get a lot more interesting for those prisoners and for the insurgents as a whole.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

Link to the Geneva Conventions

[scott_harpell]

I know we have gone over this, but I am of the impression that the majority of those in custody do not even have protection under the Geneva convention. They should, but they don't.

[scott_harpell]

Why doesn't the western press hoot and holler about the treatment of the Coalition prisoners by the insurgents?

 

Doesn't fit the agenda.

[fenderfour]

They don't have protection for one reason: They don't abide by the convention. The are provisions for everyone that fights in a declared war, even for non-uniformed, almost-organized resistance fighters from a foreign country.

[Ratboy]

Considering the Red Cross estimate that 70-90% of the Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib were innocent of anything whatsoever, how exactly did they not abide by the Geneva Convention?

[Fat_Teddy]

Considering the Red Cross estimate that 70-90% of the Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib were innocent of anything whatsoever, how exactly did they not abide by the Geneva Convention?

 

Ah yes, the Red Cross. Masters of war. The authority on terrorism.

[fenderfour]

Considering the Red Cross estimate that 70-90% of the Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib were innocent of anything whatsoever, how exactly did they not abide by the Geneva Convention?

 

1. I'm with Fat Teddy on this one.

 

2. Their "faction" is guilty, therefore they are guilty. It's impossible in a real war to determine who exactly is doing what, to whom, and when until a thorough investigation has been undertaken. In this conflict, there is no clear chain of command, so it makes it more difficult. Since the insurgents choose not to wear uniforms or to publicly delineate themselves from one another as organized groups, they are assumed to be one group fighting against the evil western empire.

[scott_harpell]

No agenda there. May I as why they are not concerned with the welfare of U.S. prisoners? That's right strict adherence to their agenda despite the degradation of there humanitarian credo.

[Jim]

Rumsfield and Bush have specifically stated that all prisoners take in Iraq will be affored the protections of the Geneva Conventions, unlike those in Afganistan. This was stated last year and repeated in the past few weeks.

[Fat_Teddy]

They Lied

[fenderfour]

I'm not defending the actions at Abu Ghraib. I just wanted to set the record straight about what the GC said, instead of going along with all of this speculation and "doesn't the GC say something about..." statements.

 

I also wanted to point out that people in the West like to bitch about what the US is doing while turning a blind eye to the atrocities that are committed againt the Coalition forces.

 

Tell me Jim, which would you rather do, have your faced pressed against another man's crotch or to be decapitated on video? Maybe you would prefer Jessica Lynch's fate of repeated rape and a severe beating?

 

But thanks for pointing out Bush's comments. Personally, I'm appalled at the fact that any politician would lie.

[johndavidjr]

Post is interesting, mostly a legalistic, red herring. From a cynical viewpoint the question is whether ill-treatment of prisoners is worth the cost to U.S. credibility, as keeping things secret isn't at present a realistic option. If it could save my ass (a mile from WTC) I'd probably favor it, but one can't know that it would be the outcome, & very limited indications suggest no upside so far on any level.

Edited June 9, 2004 by johndavidjr

[Jim]

Tell me Jim, which would you rather do, have your faced pressed against another man's crotch or to be decapitated on video? Maybe you would prefer Jessica Lynch's fate of repeated rape and a severe beating?

 

So this is the yardstick we should be using to measure our actions aganinst our captives? I would like to think we don't need to stoop to these atrocities, or come close.

[scott_harpell]

Tell me Jim, which would you rather do, have your faced pressed against another man's crotch or to be decapitated on video? Maybe you would prefer Jessica Lynch's fate of repeated rape and a severe beating?

 

So this is the yardstick we should be using to measure our actions aganinst our captives? I would like to think we don't need to stoop to these atrocities, or come close.

 

No, but mabe the Red Cross can pull their collective head out of their ass by actually helping those in need. We criticize Bush for invading Iraq and not Rwanda, but why not criticize the Red Cross for helping someone who was "humiliated" rather than someone being raped, tortured, slaughtered, pissed on and then hung 20 miles away. If you are gonna be a whiny bitch, at least do it accross the board.

[fenderfour]

Legalistic yes, red herring no. Personally I don't believe that the mistreatment of prisoners is worth the diplomatic damage that it has done to the US. But then again, I don't know what information (if any) has been gotten from the prisoners. It's very likely that none of the intelligence from this incident will ever be made public. Give it five years. Noone will remember what happened at Abu Ghraib.

[fenderfour]

Tell me Jim, which would you rather do, have your faced pressed against another man's crotch or to be decapitated on video? Maybe you would prefer Jessica Lynch's fate of repeated rape and a severe beating?

 

 

So this is the yardstick we should be using to measure our actions aganinst our captives? I would like to think we don't need to stoop to these atrocities, or come close.

It's not a measurement. I have read a lot of posts on this board complainig about what has happened to the Iraqis, but only about half as many complaining about what has happened to the Westerners. Why do you think that is? Do you not care?

 

Edited June 9, 2004 by fenderfour

[Thinker]

The Abu Ghraib interrogations were probably just practice for the interrogators who'd just finished up their training in Israel. By the time those interrogators get back to the States and start working on the 'terrorists' captured or detained here they'll have the process polished and efficient.

 

What strikes me as odd, or at least contradictory, is the moral high ground that the politicians try to maintain. The rhetoric says that the US is waging the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for the good of the people there and for the good of the larger world. Ignoring the rhetoric and observing the actions of the politicans and the US military lead the thinking man to a very different set of conclusions.

[fenderfour]

Politicians have been lying as long as they have been politicking. Conservative and liberal, they are all guilty. We are just living these lies right now so they are fresh in your head.

 

It's like the listed weights on technical clothing.

[JoshK]

I keep hearing the "college fraternity prank" comparison. I'm sorry, but if that is the kind of shit you consider hazing you really better have a lot of self exploration about your own homosexuality.

[scott_harpell]

I keep hearing the "college fraternity prank" comparison. I'm sorry, but if that is the kind of shit you consider hazing you really better have a lot of self exploration about your own homosexuality.

 

Tru 'nuff

[johndavidjr]

Iraqis will probably remember the story, to the detriment of Bush's stated goal of establishing Texas-style society in Middle East. NYT had a headline said that no useful info was obtained at the AG prison via mistreatment, which seems fairly likely, given its circus-style management. (there are other places, hopefully better run, where same questions would apply) Whether it violated the Gen. Con. is maybe a side issue. If U.S courts decide that suspected terrorists, or rioters or whatever they decide to call them aren't covered, & it's discovered that U.S. accidently killed a few people while trying to provide some "encouragement," then how does that change the outcome?

[scott_harpell]

NYT had a headline said that no useful info was obtained at the AG prison via mistreatment

 

How in the hell would they know that? I call bull shit.

[fenderfour]

Sorry, not my hazing, I never went to a university, but I have heard stories from frat boys and seen pieces in the news that are very similar.

 

I ask the question: Where would you rather be in Abu Ghraib as an enemy combatant or in the custody of the insurgents?

[Ratboy]

My question still hasn't been answered. Whether you like the Red Cross or not is irrelevent. I have seen no one refute their claims with actual data. So how exactly does torturing what are more than likely inncoent people not go against the Geneva Convention? Surely someone can do better than whining that they didn't wear uniforms to make it easy for us to tell them apart.

[Jim]

Tell me Jim, which would you rather do, have your faced pressed against another man's crotch or to be decapitated on video? Maybe you would prefer Jessica Lynch's fate of repeated rape and a severe beating?

 

 

So this is the yardstick we should be using to measure our actions aganinst our captives? I would like to think we don't need to stoop to these atrocities, or come close.

It's not a measurement. I have read a lot of posts on this board complainig about what has happened to the Iraqis, but only about half as many complaining about what has happened to the Westerners. Why do you think that is? Do you not care?

 

Certainly any civilized person would be outraged by death of innocents taken by milita or terrorists in Iraq. We don't expect them to abide by any moral code because they have vowed otherwise.

 

In the case of established governments, particularly ours where we are claiming the moral high ground, invading a country to "free" it and bring American values, it seems we have an obligatation to toe the line regarding human rights. Otherwise it seems we're just talk and our values are hollow.