Bush claims authority to suspend Geneva

[rmnunez]

It would seem that the Bush administration feels that it can suspend the Geneva convention agreements with respect to prisoner treatment, in the case of Al Qaeda detainees.

This makes no sense, the GC does not apply to terrorists (Al Qaeda detainees) even when captured by a Convention signatory (the US).

The GC covers several things, among them treatment of enemy forces upon capture. Under the basic rules, mutuality is a condition (so whatever the enemy does to yours can be reasonably done to theirs). There have been a number of amendments and improvements to the GC since its inception and in the IVth Protocol they added provisions to cover enemy combatants out of uniform, but the US never signed on to this.

The US (and several other governments) would not ratify the IVth Protocol because it was deemed to endanger another of the GC's concerns; civilians. The Protocol, in any case, would apply only to those who, lacking uniforms, sported some sort of distictive identifiable insignia of an entity with some sort of hierarchical structure, with an identifiable chain of command wherein the individual captive could be situated.

The only constraints on how Al Qaeda members captured can be handled are those their captors choose to impose on themselves.

There are some advantages to treating the terrorist detainees miserably; it could help in extracting information, maybe encourage new captives to spill the beans in order to avoid the troubles their colleagues endured; it could discourage the more weak-hearted from setting off to the madrassas if they anticipated they could get caught and humiliated being photographed wearing panties on their heads with enemy females laughing and pointing at their genitals; it could even provoke riskier terrorist ventures in retaliation and they are having a tremendous casualty rate among their own with each attack so this helps reduce their number.

[gr8fuldaniel]

".... The Geneva Conventions applied. They have applied every single day from the outset."
-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
May 20, 2004, citation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/).

Thats a lie straight out of hell.
How would he explain this: link There are hundreds if not thousands of DOD charges. That link is from a recent FOIA disclosure of incidents the DOD, Rumsfeld, has been aware of since before the date of that quote.
I cant copy/paste this kind of PDF so check out item 8 b on page 6, Which is dated 7 days after Rumsfelds quote: "They have applied every single day from the outset." This is just one item.
Our acts of terrorism against Iraqis was going on during the State of the union address of 2004. (January I think)

[rmnunez]

The Conventions apply to POWs, not to these indeterminate "battlefield detainees", citizens of third countries, armed and attacking regular armed forces.

Rumsfeld is right to say the Conventions apply, they always have, the US is a party to them and the Conventions restrict what the US can do to captured members of an enemy's armed forces, but Al Qaeda is not an armed force within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions. Hence, even if the Conventions apply (as noted by Rumsfeld) they don't protect non-POWs (i.e. Al Qaeda members or other suspected terrorists).

[gr8fuldaniel]

So because Rumsfeld calls horse shit a ham sandwich you will gobble that sucker down.
Non-POW? What a crock. A POW is a POW whether you are in denial or not.
Besides it doesnt matter if someone else is a signatory, WE SIGNED the GC so we have to treat everyone accordingly. We cant act like a satanic cult because Gonzalez decided to redefine words, and call the GC Quaint.

[PatrickHenry]

After the defeat of an invaded nation's uniformed military, the occupation forces may label all resistance as terrorists, and insist that the GC does not apply. Is this your contention, Nunez?

[RickSp]

Basically we demand that everyone else observe the Geneva Convention, but we don't have to. Our new proposed Attorney General called it "quaint" and "outdated." He also opined that torture was just fine and in the name of national security the president could break virtually any law he chose to break.

The lawyerly analysis that claims that essentially no one is covered by the Geneva Convention unless they wear a uniform, march in a straight line and speak English, is simply shameful. The same Orwellian nonsense is used to claim that the abuse of prisoners personally authorized by Rumsfeld is not "torture."

If this is the standard America choses, then flag burning becomes public policy. The flag has no particular meaning if all it stands for is arrogance and brutality

[Technosoul]

It matter not because for one thing many of the prisoners collected in Afganstan were employed by their old government the Talaban and not by Bin Laden or his tiny group. And next - human are humans do matter who they are fighting on behalf of and so "in the spirit of international agreements" human rights should be repected at all prisons do matter what the person was arrested for.

The G.C. agreements represent our first attempt at global democarcy and so Bush's rejection of that policy means that he rejects the concept and the philosophy of democarcy in favor of something more along the lines of the concepts of a dictatorship. That is perfectly clear.

If Bush is not in favor of gobal democracy then you can bet he also is not favor of local democarcy here in the USA ether, so watch your back!

Bush has gravely lowered the standards of human rights (and humanity in general) and in so doing has sided with the opinions of hostage takers (hostages are prisoners) in Irag.

Technosoul.

[Nono]

The Conventions apply to POWs, not to these indeterminate "battlefield detainees", citizens of third countries, armed and attacking regular armed forces. (...) Al Qaeda is not an armed force within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions.

Wrong, rummie. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention reads as follows:

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 (above), such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The commentaries to the Conventions make very clear what "competent tribunal" refers to. These guys' status has never been clarified by any such thing. That's a violation of the law.

[Rainbow]

It would seem that the Bush administration feels that it can suspend the Geneva convention agreements with respect to prisoner treatment, in the case of Al Qaeda detainees. I suppose this means we could start beheading them, and hanging their corpses, on fire, upside down, from the nearest bridge in Iraq. I'm fairly confident it won't come to that.

I do not think that Bush is willing to start beheading, ect. Al-Qaeda detainees.
Even technically, they carry valuable informations for U.S. Intelligence, so they must be kept "safe", for that process at least.

Do you think that U.S. should give away flowers to its enemies ?
Maybe a cup of coffee ?

Al-Qaeda is not any enemy-combatant, but bandits with a goal to terrorize all the people all over the world (and especially American and European) who do not agree with pro-Islamic fundamental doctrines.

[saif]

I do not think that Bush is willing to start beheading, ect. Al-Qaeda detainees.
Even technically, they carry valuable informations for U.S. Intelligence, so they must be kept "safe", for that process at least.

Do you think that U.S. should give away flowers to its enemies ?
Maybe a cup of coffee ?

Al-Qaeda is not any enemy-combatant, but bandits with a goal to terrorize all the people all over the world (and especially American and European) who do not agree with pro-Islamic fundamental doctrines.

Have you not read all of the posts reguarding the treatment of detainess, as well as pow's? there is these things called civil rights - last i knew everyone had them, even to the lowest level of species..

[Rainbow]

Have you not read all of the posts reguarding the treatment of detainess, as well as pow's? there is these things called civil rights - last i knew everyone had them, even to the lowest level of species..

Give me a break with your pacifism, please. Pacifism and politics do neither go along nor work together.

You have problems with distinguishing :
- bandits, who deserve no rights
from
- war combatants, who are being covered by Geneva Convention

[saif]

Call it what you wish but I would have a difficult time looking myself in the face as a us serviceman after sodomizing another human being, but then agin thats what the pictures are for huh?

it disgraces the underlying principle found in the Military Code of Conduct which specifically states that a soldier will “never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and (that I am) dedicated to the principles which made my country free.” These principles are exemplified within the Declaration of Independence stating that “All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The Geneva Convention which is binding upon the United States as well as Nations that are outside the U.N Charter state that “violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture onto persons taking no active part in 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, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.” Furthermore, that the wounded and sick shall be collected and afforded care.