Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Good diversion because the Geneva convention/Gitmo connection has been debuked. Where is resident genius?
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Oh, there he is, hasn’t given up yet. The point is they are not ** enforcing compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. **
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
not really… we are discussing a “for the sake of argument” scenario… something you, as Mr Xenophobe 2005, would hardly understand…
here’s something for you to chew on in the meantime
Argument: A competent tribunal is unnecessary because there is no “doubt” that the detainees fail to meet the requirements of Article 4(A)(2) for POW status.
HRW response: Article 5 requires the establishment of a competent tribunal only “[s]hould any doubt arise” as to whether a detainee meets the requirements for POW status contained in Article 4. The argument has been made that the detainees clearly do not meet one or more of the four requirements for POW status contained in Article 4(A)(2) - that they have a responsible command, carry their arms openly, wear uniforms with distinct insignia, or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. However, under the terms of Article 4(A)(2), these four requirements apply only to militia operating independently of a government’s regular armed forces - for example, to those members of al-Qaeda who were operating independently of the Taliban’s armed forces. But under Article 4(A)(1) these four requirements do not apply to “members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militia … forming part of such armed forces.” That is, this four-part test would not apply to members of the Taliban’s armed forces, since the Taliban, as the de facto government of Afghanistan, was a Party to the Geneva Convention. The four-part test would also not apply to militia that were integrated into the Taliban’s armed forces, such as, perhaps, the Taliban’s “55th Brigade,” which we understand to have been composed of foreign troops fighting as part of the Taliban.
Administration officials have repeatedly described the Guantanamo detainees as including both Taliban and al-Qaeda members. A competent tribunal is thus needed to determine whether the detainees are members of the Taliban’s armed forces (or an integrated militia), in which case they would be entitled to POW status automatically, or members only of al-Qaeda, in which case they probably would not be entitled to POW status because of their likely failure to meet the above-described four-part test. Until a tribunal makes that determination, Article 5 requires all detainees to be treated as POWs.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
The question is, what is the difference between POW, and an enemy combatant. Here is one good distinction which is part of a very long and well written article:
- Lawful Belligerency: Combatant’s Privilege & POW Status
If a combatant follows LOAC during war, “combatant’s privilege” applies and the combatant is immune from prosecution for lawful combat activities. For example, a lawful combatant may not be tried for an act (such as assault, murder, kidnapping, trespass, and destruction of property) that is a crime under a capturing party’s domestic law in time of peace, when that act is committed within the context of hostilities and does not otherwise violate LOAC. (11) In addition, the captured lawful combatant receives Geneva Convention III POW status with its special rights, better conditions, and more extensive set of benefits.
Conversely, if a combatant ignores the criteria of lawful belligerency, the individual may be deemed an unlawful combatant. An unlawful combatant is also referred to with identical meaning as an illegal combatant, unprivileged combatant, franc-tireur meaning “free-shooter,” unprivileged belligerent, dishonorable belligerent or unlawful belligerent. The unlawful combatant may then, upon capture in an international armed conflict at the discretion of the capturing party, forfeit combatant’s privilege and Geneva Convention III POW status, and not be afforded full POW protections under Geneva Convention III. Further, if the unlawful combatant has committed grave breaches of LOAC, the individual may be tried in a military commission; and if convicted, be punished appropriately.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_55/ai_n8585592/pg_2
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
^ that link crashes each time… so again, the “names” of the internationally accepted treaties under which the prisoners are being held would be helpful
Criminals or Combatants?
Most of the detainees have not been convicted of or even charged with a crime; they are “enemy combatants,” soldiers who fought against the U.S. troops. Under international law, engaging in active hostilities is not a “crime”—it is an exercise of the combatant’s privilege, to kill before you are killed. (Of course, soldiers do commit offenses during conflict, such as rape or killing a civilian or surrendered enemy, and these are punishable as crimes.)
Even though enemy combatants are not criminals, warring states have the legal right to hold them in detention for interrogation or to prevent them from reengaging in active hostilities. In such cases, international law clearly governs the conditions and duration of detention and protects captured detainees from the type of treatment described above. At Guantanamo Bay, however, the Bush administration has refused to recognize the detainees under international law and has avoided the legal obligations.
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/detention.html
see ya later
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
That’s quite a title, but with so much competition on this board, I hardly think I am worthy.
The Taliban could conceivably be considered differently than the other terrorists, but they still must follow the rules of war to be considered.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Yeah show me where the entire article makes the distinction between signatories and non-signatories?
A note to you: It does not make any such difference.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Does not change the fact that they qualify 3 of the qualifications needed.
Additionally the quote is from the protocol and not the convention and it does not apply retroactively. The convention applies as is and it applies to Gitmo under article 4.
I am just trying to see how many excuses you lot can come up with as you do not quote the convention.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
MAToos can jump up and down and talk about Geneva. However they completely fail to notice that Pakistani-shias just bombed out of this world deserved a bit more than Geneva convention. They deserved humane treatment in their own mosque. However these MAToo followers of Ben-La-Deen and his sidekick Mullah Omer Sharif, didn’t care. These beardo weirdos simply blasted the Muslims in Imam Bari, and the Imam bargah of Karachi.
Off course it is hard to expect any rational response from these Arrabob MAToos.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
^^ CM,
One of the problems you are having is that there is a whole body of law which applies to this circumstance. The Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) are a highly complex and historic set of international norms, that have eveolved for the better part of a century. Most “Human Rights” advocates and keyboard jihadis are completely unaware of this specialized area of international legal practice. If you bother to read the full 83 pages of the article below, you might just learn that the issues being argued here have been debated for more than 50 years, and are based on more that just the Geneva Conventions. More than any other document I have found the following article describes point by point the process that determines the decsion making process of the US.
The overall tone is important here. POW status is awarded to those who follow the rules of LOAC. That is a rational decision designed to persuade armies to avoid civilian casualties, and to treat soldiers honorably. Simply put, honorable soldiers are entitled to honorable conditions. Awarding POW priviledges to dishonorable soldiers dilutes the motivation to behave well on the battlefield. Ultimately that is the quid pro quo of the Geneva Conventions. Diluting this motivation encourages barbaric behavior.
Read this:News Articles - FindArticles
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
No they are not awarded. Re-read the convention. The rights can not be waved and apply under peace times and war times. There is no question if they are to be awarded. They are to be given regardless. Once again Article 2.
Plus its so icky when you are nice.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Article 2 does not specifically say “everybody is a POW”.
This is a more reasoned explaination:
Domestic and international human rights organizations and other groups have criticized the U.S., (1) arguing that al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees in Cuba should be granted Geneva Convention III prisoner of war (POW) (2) status. They contend broadly that pursuant to the international laws of armed conflict (LOAC), combatants captured during armed conflict must be treated equally and conferred POW status. However, no such blanket obligation exists in international law. There is no legal or moral equivalence in LOAC between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants, or between lawful belligerency and unlawful belligerency (also referred to as lawful combatantry and unlawful combatantry).
The U.S. has applied well-established existing international law in holding that the al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees are presumptively unlawful combatants not entitled to POW status. (3) Taliban and al-Qaeda enemy combatants captured without military uniforms in armed conflict are not presumptively entitled to, nor automatically granted, POW status. POW status is a privileged status given by a capturing party as an international obligation to a captured enemy combatant, if and when the enemy’s previous lawful actions in armed conflict demonstrate that POW status is merited. In the case of captured al-Qaeda and Taliban combatants, their combined unlawful actions in armed conflict, and al-Qaeda’s failure to adequately align with a state show POW status is not warranted.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Quoted for the 10th time. Read what it says. During times of Peace, war and armed conflict this convention shall apply. There is no mention of merit. That word is not used in the entire convention.
Secondly Article 4 Paragraph 1 applies to Al-Qaeda. That defines them and they are considered POWs under that paragraph. Thus the convention applies, during times of war and times of peace.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Additionally it is not a privileged status. Article 7:
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=151045… things are the same as they were earlier.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
I think it is time now for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to demand the return of the Gtmo detainees. As soon as they are back in the country, get their case processed through anti-terror courts and hang them in the city center.
These killers of Pakistani-Shias, Pakistani-Ahmadis, and Pakistani-Christians do not deserve any symathy. These Arrabobs and their MAToo supporters think all Pakistanis are Rafeeks and Miskeens. Everone of these Arrabobs like Al-Labia should be dragged through the streets of Karachi where they plotted to bomb the mosques while Pakistani-Muslims knelt before Allah.
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
So is it generally accepted now that the US is violating the Geneva Convention?
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Poor boy.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Part III : Methods and means of warfare – Combatant and prisoner-of-war status section II – Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 44 – Combatants and prisoners of war
-
Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
-
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.
-
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.
- 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.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/524284f49042d4c8c12563cd0051dbaf?OpenDocument
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
Reading and comprehension not your strongest skill is it? The convention is over arching. The protocol is not. The protocol is not retroactive and the Convention is supreme.
Article 4 defines POW. That is the only definition that matters. As it is the convention not a protocol. Need anything else cleared up?
Re: Gitmo bay and the Geneva Convention:
^^ nice try but wrong. Article 44 is not meaningless, it is there for a purpose.
- Combatant Duty to Appear Visually Distinct from Noncombatant Civilians
Of paramount importance is that all combatants have an unconditional legal duty in armed conflict to protect noncombatant civilians by distinguishing themselves visually from the civilian population. Failure to do so with perfidious intent is a violation of LOAC. Geneva Convention III mandates as one of the four essential criteria of lawful belligerency that all combatants in international armed conflict must wear distinctive dress. (12) Similarly, customary international law, the practice among states over time, provides that spies, saboteurs, terrorists, resistance groups, guerrillas, irregulars, militias, insurgents, and other combatants, if captured in an international armed conflict while impersonating protected civilians perfidiously, do not necessarily share the same advantaged fate and implicit international stature as do uniformed lawful combatants. (13) International law has long recognized that combatants who hide among and attempt to blend into civilian populations during armed conflict are uniquely dangerous to protected noncombatant civilians. (14)
If an opposing side is unable to differentiate between combatants who may legally engage in combat and protected noncombatant civilians who may not lawfully engage in combat, the opposing side might be tempted then to wrongfully and indiscriminately target everyone within an operational theater. A primary purpose of LOAC is to proactively stave off such desperate “cannot tell apart the enemy soldiers from the civilians, so shoot them all” criminal acts of reductionism. LOAC seeks to protect civilian populations by proscribing conduct that endangers such populations unreasonably, such as taking part in combat without wearing a distinctive uniform or other form of identification that is clear and visible at a distance. As stated earlier, the capturing party has the prerogative to deny such unlawful combatants POW status and some of its related benefits; and if applicable, try them for criminal acts of unlawful belligerency. (15) This is a balanced, time-honored, and practical method of encouraging compliance with LOAC.
You see, while you believe you are some sort of “Human Rights” advocate, nothing could be further from the truth. While you rattle around trying to parse angels on the head of a pin, you are missing the point entirely. The highest order of protection goes to the civilians. When a combatant willfullly and tactically endangers civilians as a matter of common practice he no longer earns favorable treatment under the Laws of Armed Conflict. Your feigned outrage endangers civilians by legitimizing cowards hiding among innocents. But obviously your priority is the needling of the US. So be it. But do not pretend that you are claiming the highest ground.