Sigh, more lies about abuses

Brandon

Quote:

2. It is unfair to point out our abuses and say little or nothing about the abuses by the other side which are generally worse.

Incorrect. The actions of the enemy are immaterial and unneccessary in a discussion about our own actions. This is a logical error on your part.

Cycloptichorn

For the very same reason; it is not neccessary to discuss the actions of one party in order to discuss the actions of the other party. No amount of malfescence on one side justifies the other sides.

I figure that Timber does enough criticizing of Democrats for all of us, so I leave it to him.

Nice try, though

Cycloptichorn

On the other hand, to focus solely on the abuse of prisoners by the allies in WW2, and not say anything about the infinitely worse and more prevalent abuse of prisoners by the Nazis would be misleading and unfair.

parados wrote:

Quote:

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.

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.

And it has NOTHING to do with uniforms.

So how do you show without doubt that everyone with a gun in Afghanistan was a terrorist? I can't wait to hear this one..

That was determined by people on the ground and a long process before they arrived in Gitmo.

Baldimo wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

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.

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.

And it has NOTHING to do with uniforms.

So how do you show without doubt that everyone with a gun in Afghanistan was a terrorist? I can't wait to hear this one..

That was determined by people on the ground and a long process before they arrived in Gitmo.

Read the sentence again.. People on the ground can't make that determination. It requires a COMPETENT TRIBUNAL. Something the Bush administration fought tooth and nail against.

The President can ignore the Geneva Convention at will?

Sheesh.

It's a moral thing. Who cares about the wording of the treaty?

There is a right way and a wrong way to treat people. Just because your enemy treats people the wrong way, doesn't give you a right to treat people the wrong way, even them.
; then when that vacuous argument is punctured reverts to vague references to morality.The people who determined that we could treat people the wrong way, and that's okay, have no morals any longer. This does not absolve anyone's actions.

The problem here is he is apparently unable to discriminate between the morality of filmed decapitations of prisioners and the unsavory but basically harmless abuses at Abu Garb.

The way I see it Brandon, Cycloptichorn would rather discuss the shortcomings of our country and we would rather focus on those of the people trying to kill us. It's odd, but I see his point.

I just don't agree with it. I think our country is open enough and the press free enough that those shortcomings are readily and openly exposed, discussed, investigated and resolved that I don not feel it neccessary to continuously harp on them while millions of Muslim extremeists are planning our doom as I type.

I'd rather focus on their short comings.

parados wrote:

The President can ignore the Geneva Convention at will?

No he used a qualifying portion of the GC to make his decision to hold illegal combatants. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't right.

If you want GC protections then you had better learn to abide by them as well. The enemy we fight hasn't done that.

You never answered my earlier question. Do you believe terrorists fight by the laws of war? How about the insurgents? How about the Taliban? How about the Iraqi troops that acted like they were going to surrender and then opened fire on Coalition troops? Did they abide to the laws of war?

What qualifying portion of the GC are you referring to? I have quoted the relevant ones that require COMPETENT tribunal to determine the status. The President did NOT do such a thing.

To answer your simplistic question. You have no evidence they did those things.

That is the point of tribunals, to determine IF they did abide by the rules of war or not. Just because someone is picked up by US military doesn't prove they did any of the things that are against the rules of war.

The Geneva convention says they are to be treated as POWs UNTIL a competent tribunal finds they are not in that class.

I see no part of the GC that gives the President of the US the power to unilaterally declare people not covered by GC.

I would love it if you could point that part out. I doubt you can because you felt that uniforms was part of GC requirement to be covered.

What strikes me is how people argue about what could, technically, maybe, be legal (we know a lot can) or how abuses by US soldiers aren't that bad in comparison or that the other side does it, too.

I wonder if people realize how this is perceived outside the United States. What we see here is a Secretary of Defense who issues directives about interrogation methods that might be used. Including:

- Removal of clothing
- The use of 20 hour interrogations
- The detainee may also have a hood placed over his head during transportation and questioning
- Using detainees' individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress
- The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family

A little later we see what this means in practice, as photos from Abu Ghraib show up. We see the President of the United States signing memos that the Geneva Convention would not apply. We see the President of the United States signing laws about 'rendition', and a little later people disappear all around the world. We read in a US Army report about prisoners being tortured and killed by US soldiers.

And the list goes on and on....

Sure, I want to believe that the US is the 'good' side. But is this something you would suppose the 'good' side to do? Is kidnapping Americans in Iraq worse than kidnapping people in Italy, Germany, Sweden or Canada? Is killing somebody by breaking his legs better than killing somebody by decapitating him?

SECTION II -- COMBATANT AND PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS

Article 43 -- Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Article 44 -- Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and

(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1(c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.

8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.

Article 45 -- Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

Parados, you always seem to highlight the wrong portions of the GC.