Redirecting... - Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 2 of this convention pertains to the current status of the “war on terrorism” thus making the convention applicable.
Article 3.1 applies in cases of Gitmo as some who have been arressted were indeed not armed combatants. They did not wear a uniform nor did they take active part in hostilities.
Article 3.1 C is just another form of the US Constitution it reads:
The current forms of actions taken in Gitmo highlighted in earlier threads are a violation of Article 3.1 C.
Article 4 defines Prisioners of War in a manner which again applies to Gitmo bay.
Article 13 applies to what is happening in Gitmo and outlaws it. The actions are illegal.
Article 17 sub paragraph 3 outlaws actions taken by the US in Gitmo bay.
I stop here as there is enough to discuss on the matter. But as you can see that the US is violating the Geneva convention on numerous levels.
US neo-cons are about as interested in the Geneva Convention as they are in human and prisoner rights, global warming, the lives of ordinary Iraqis and, err, freedom and democracy
1.** A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.**
A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
Sadly class is not over. Article 4 sub paragraph 1 governs the entire geneva convention and applies to all parties of an armed conflict.
What you have linked is not the geneva convention. This is article 47 of the geneva convention:
There is no mention of Mercenaries in the geneva convention. What you quote is not the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
^ even then, the protocols are introduced with the words:
"nothing in this Protocol or in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 can be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations"
and the Charter itself says in its introduction that the signatories are determined:
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small"
... it is the serious human rights violations of detainees at Guantanamo Bay that is at the heart of the whole debate
Agreed. I did not read that part. I just read protocol and by definition they are secondary to any convention. The text which you supplied only further supports that fact. Thanks.
Recuiting Jihadis to travel to foreign lands under promises of heaven and 72 virgins is a global problem. If they were willing to wear the Uniform of the Afghan Army, civilian casualties could be avoided, which is the overriding concern of ALL of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Sending private Al Qaedda armies to foreign lands paid by OBL or some other shaddowy organization ruins a lot of neighborhoods. When you do not wear distinguishing uniforms, travel from foeign lands, are recruited from foreign lands, and do not have the permission of your government you forego the protections of the Geneva conventions in full. Mercenaries are criminals. Jihadis are no better.
That these people are ruthless, brutal and do not care about the lands that they are in, is proven every day. This is a new type of war. They declared war via a Fatwa in 1997. But when they willfully attack the WTCs, Madrid commuters, Bali nightclubs, they most obviously DO NO obey the laws of war which is the prerequisite for protections under the Geneva conventions.
The heart and soul of the Geneva Conventions is the protection of innocents. Al Qaedda has not only shown that it will not avoid harm to civilians, it has authorized direct and willful attacks against civilians. They do not deserve the protections of the Conventions on many levels.
^ Homer vomits the same "guilty until proven innocent" blooper that his hero Bush committed a couple of years back and regurgitated only recently by Cheney
On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
Sorry, the Laws of War are balanced. Only those who obey the Laws of War are entitled to their protections. In its declaration of Holy War above, Al Qaeda clearly states that they have no intention of following the Laws of War, and their attacks have brutally proven that point. To then expect that these same people would be entitled to the protections when they have declared that they will intentionally target civilians is essentially using the Protections of the West to their advantage.
And of course you are doing their work for them. Good Muslim boy.
Just becauase you repeat something over and over does not make it true. Civilian-killing Jihadis that hide among the populace and in mosques are not covered by the Geneva Convention. Choose another cause dude, this one is a dead end.
duh!? the sooner you stop letting Google speak for you and think for yourself the better…
from the Convention…
“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.”
in your world, Homer, two wrongs obviously make a right… in the real world (feel free to come and join it anytime soon) they don’t
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:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
