From the "No shit, Sherlock" file

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The GC sets a standard of behavior for treatment of prisoners.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


correction:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The GC sets a standard of behavior for treatment of UNIFORMED prisoners.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


thanks

WRONG

Care to guess again???


Maybe this will help


http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Geneva_Conventions

Convention I: This Convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel against attack, execution without judgment, torture, and assaults upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.

Convention II: This agreement extended the protections mentioned in the first Convention to shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, including special protections afforded to hospital ships.

Convention III: One of the treaties created during the 1949 Convention, this defined what a Prisoner of War was, and accorded them proper and humane treatment as specified by the first Convention. Specifically, it required POWs to give only their name, rank, and serial number to their captors. Nations party to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs.

Convention IV: Under this Convention, civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded in the first Convention to sick and wounded soldiers. Furthermore, additional regulations regarding the treatment of civilians were introduced. Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc. It also specifies the right of internees, and those who commit acts of sabotage. Finally, it discusses how occupiers are to treat an occupied populace.

Protocol I: In this additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the signing Nations agreed to further restrictions on the treatment of "protected persons" according to the original Conventions. Furthermore, clarification of the terms used in the Conventions was introduced. Finally, new rules regarding the treatment of the deceased, cultural artifacts, and dangerous targets (such as dams and nuclear installations) were produced.

Protocol II: In this Protocol, the fundamentals of "humane treatment" were further clarified. Additionally, the rights of interned persons were specifically enumerated, providing protections for those charged with crimes during wartime. It also identified new protections and rights of civilian populations.

•The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified the two additional Protocols of 1977.
•Disputes arising under the Conventions or the Protocols additional to them are settled by courts of the member nations (Article 49 of Convention I) or by international tribunals.
•The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent has a special role given by the Geneva Conventions, whereby it handles, and is granted access to, the wounded, sick, and POWs.

[FallingOsh 0]

The part you bolded is discussing civilians. The non-uniformed fighters are unlawful combatants, not civilians. If Joe Blow is arrested off the streets of Baghdad then he would be a civilian. Those actively engaging in a fight against our troops are not afforded the same status. POW status may be awarded but it is not required.

The foggy part comes when deciding whether the combatant is a national of a hostile state. They are not really a national of any state, but are the enemy. From the link;

"The GCs do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles."

Which takes us back to the beginning. Art III only details treatment of civilians.



*Before anyone goes ape shit on my post, I've said multiple times that I do not support torture. Just trying to put some point to the GC argument.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The part you bolded is discussing civilians. The non-uniformed fighters are unlawful combatants, not civilians. If Joe Blow is arrested off the streets of Baghdad then he would be a civilian. Those actively engaging in a fight against our troops are not afforded the same status. POW status may be awarded but it is not required

So basically you want to categorize everyone picked up as an unlawful combatant..

Guess what.. Just because someone over there rats out some guy down the street.. or in the next villiage... does NOT mean they are acutally one of your scary terrorists.. no matter how much you want him to be one. His treatment is defined in Number 4 not number 3.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The part you bolded is discussing civilians. The non-uniformed fighters are unlawful combatants, not civilians. If Joe Blow is arrested off the streets of Baghdad then he would be a civilian. Those actively engaging in a fight against our troops are not afforded the same status. POW status may be awarded but it is not required.

And that's the fallacy crafted by the Bush administration; more specifically, it disgusts me to say, by its lawyers: that there is this convenient "unclassified" category called "unlawful combatant" to which no protections of law are accorded.

Here's the correct legal truth:
A person under forcible detention in wartime is either (1) a combatant entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding combatants, (2) a civilian entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding civilians, or (3) a criminal suspect entitled to due process of law. THERE IS NO OTHER CATEGORY - PERIOD.

[frequentfaller 0]

The practices and behavior of these fighters en masse in combat deny them privileges as lawful belligerents entitled to combatant's privilege. The article argues that al-Qaeda unlawful combatants are most appropriately described as hostes humani generis, "the common enemies of humankind."

Al-Qaeda & Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed conflict
Air Force Law Review, Spring, 2004 by Joseph P. Bialke

Born ok 1st time.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

The practices and behavior of these fighters en masse in combat deny them privileges as lawful belligerents entitled to combatant's privilege. The article argues that al-Qaeda unlawful combatants are most appropriately described as hostes humani generis, "the common enemies of humankind."

Al-Qaeda & Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed conflict
Air Force Law Review, Spring, 2004 by Joseph P. Bialke

And who made him the official arbiter?

I find it very interesting to see who is wriggling around trying to make a case for brutal and inhuman treatment of people in our custody many of whom were NOT caught fighting but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our behavior that has brought our nation no good at all and a lot of vilification from the rest of the world and many (maybe most) of our own citizens.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[frequentfaller 0]

Quote

And who made him the official arbiter?

I find it very interesting to see who is wriggling around trying to make a case for brutal and inhuman treatment of people in our custody many of whom were NOT caught fighting but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our behavior that has brought our nation no good at all and a lot of vilification from the rest of the world and many (maybe most) of our own citizens.

He isn't the official arbiter. Just someone with an opinon. thats what prison is. brutal. who are these "many" that are falsley imprisoned? I have read a few horrible cases, but I think this will happen when the enemy is not identifiable, unless they are shooting at you or blowing you up at that specific time. we are definitly vilified by our enemies, the rest of the world, not so much. africa likes us.

Born ok 1st time.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The practices and behavior of these fighters en masse in combat deny them privileges as lawful belligerents entitled to combatant's privilege.

Even if, for the sake of discussion, that were true (which I don't necessarily concede; but that's another issue), if they are not "lawful combatants", then, both by default and by definition, they are criminal suspects, under arrest, who are entitled to no less due process of law than, for example, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols received when they were arrested and prosecuted for the OKC terrorist bombing and murder of dozens of people. But the notion that somehow there exists this nether-category of "unlawful combatant" to which no pre-existing structure of legal process applies is complete bullshit.

The rule of law does not apply only when it is comfortable and easy to do so. To the contrary, the time when it is most crucial and necessary to apply it is in circumstances that are extreme, painful and highly-charged with emotion and urgency.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

And who made him the official arbiter?

I find it very interesting to see who is wriggling around trying to make a case for brutal and inhuman treatment of people in our custody many of whom were NOT caught fighting but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our behavior that has brought our nation no good at all and a lot of vilification from the rest of the world and many (maybe most) of our own citizens.

He isn't the official arbiter. Just someone with an opinon. thats what prison is. brutal. who are these "many" that are falsley imprisoned? I have read a few horrible cases, but I think this will happen when the enemy is not identifiable, unless they are shooting at you or blowing you up at that specific time. we are definitly vilified by our enemies, the rest of the world, not so much. africa likes us.

Ah, but there's the rub. Because we don't hold trials, we don't actually KNOW who is an "unlawful combatant" and who is not. So by treating them all as unlawful combatants, we become in violation of the GCs.

OTOH, if we treated them all properly, we wouldn't have a problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

The part you bolded is discussing civilians. The non-uniformed fighters are unlawful combatants, not civilians. If Joe Blow is arrested off the streets of Baghdad then he would be a civilian. Those actively engaging in a fight against our troops are not afforded the same status. POW status may be awarded but it is not required

So basically you want to categorize everyone picked up as an unlawful combatant..

Guess what.. Just because someone over there rats out some guy down the street.. or in the next villiage... does NOT mean they are acutally one of your scary terrorists.. no matter how much you want him to be one. His treatment is defined in Number 4 not number 3.

Re-read my post, take a deep breath, and try again. Someone arrested on the streets is a civilian. Somone who is actively participating in the fight against our troops is not a civilian.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

The part you bolded is discussing civilians. The non-uniformed fighters are unlawful combatants, not civilians. If Joe Blow is arrested off the streets of Baghdad then he would be a civilian. Those actively engaging in a fight against our troops are not afforded the same status. POW status may be awarded but it is not required.

And that's the fallacy crafted by the Bush administration; more specifically, it disgusts me to say, by its lawyers: that there is this convenient "unclassified" category called "unlawful combatant" to which no protections of law are accorded.

Here's the correct legal truth:
A person under forcible detention in wartime is either (1) a combatant entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding combatants, (2) a civilian entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding civilians, or (3) a criminal suspect entitled to due process of law. THERE IS NO OTHER CATEGORY - PERIOD.

"The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles."

Now what? We're not in a war with a nation state.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[frequentfaller 0]

Quote

OTOH, if we treated them all properly, we wouldn't have a problem.

OK everybody freeze! you're all under arrest. stop your shooting and wait till your court date is here.

Born ok 1st time.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

OTOH, if we treated them all properly, we wouldn't have a problem.

Agreed. There have been several instances that have done immense amounts of damage like Abu Ghraib.

OTOH, define "properly." I've read reports than many detainees in Gitmo have actually gained weight because they've been fed so well. Personally, it's not a matter of treating prisoners properly. That's a given. I think it's one important thing that seperates us from the enemy. I think the real issue is defining how you want them treated. Steak dinners, cable tv, massages? Or 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, a roof over their head, a right to pray, and no torture? Which one is proper by your standards?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

OTOH, if we treated them all properly, we wouldn't have a problem.

Agreed. There have been several instances that have done immense amounts of damage like Abu Ghraib.

OTOH, define "properly." I've read reports than many detainees in Gitmo have actually gained weight because they've been fed so well. Personally, it's not a matter of treating prisoners properly. That's a given. I think it's one important thing that seperates us from the enemy. I think the real issue is defining how you want them treated. Steak dinners, cable tv, massages? Or 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, a roof over their head, a right to pray, and no torture? Which one is proper by your standards?

The standards defined in the GCs seem to be "proper" to most of us. Which is why it's smart to abide by them regardless of Bush's legal weaseling about whether or not they are obligatory in this particular case.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Do the Geneva conventions even apply anymore ? I thought modernized doctrines like the UN's "Laws of Land Warfare" changed all of that.

Thanks for bring the LLW into the discussion.
The Laws of Land Warfare incorporate the Geneva Conventions (1899, 1907, & 1929). The Geneva Conventions of 1929 deal with the rights of prisoners, as well as treatment of sick and wounded. Other Geneva Conventions deal with civilians and non-combant uniformed enemy (medics, priests). Stated that not because I doubt ya's know that but as context ... The Laws of Land Warfare provide that if a belligerent is not a party to the Geneva Convention of 1929, which is US law through Senate ratification legislation, its provisions shall nevertheless be binding as between all belligerents who are parties. I.e., even if the enemy is not a signatory or party, the signatories and states parties are required to act as if the enemy is.

Copied verbatim from Laws of Land Warfare, Section 4.a:

“Military necessity as understood by the United States does not purport to indicate circumstances when a belligerent commander is free from a duty to observe the law of nations.”

That is, the US does not use “military necessity” as an excuse or rationalization to violate international law, customary law, or international treaties to which it is party … The Laws of Land Warfare continue to note specifically that the US does not support or engage in the Kriegsraison doctrine that asserts the rules of war cease to operate, i.e., measures in violation of law are justifiable in times of war. That doctrine was repudiated in the Nuremburg trials, among other fora.

The Hague Convention of 1907 (part of the customary laws of land warfare) also expressly declares that the populations and belligerents are under the protection of customary law in cases not covered by the Geneva Conventions. That addresses the “non-combatant loophole” … of course, if one doesn’t want to close that loophole, one works around the Hague Convention.

The Laws of Land Warfare do contain also guidance on the non-uniformed enemy combatants too. In WWI, out-of-uniform aviators were taken prisoner and treated as POWs even tho’ they lacked the traditional military uniform, lacked identity cards (the early 1900s version of today’s CAC), and lacked identification disks or “dog tags”.

What doesn’t get discussed nearly as much in those forums is new technology. The DoD spends a fair bit of time & money working through how new technologies might be used against US service members in situations where the Geneva Conventions apply, for example folks w/whom I work in the US Navy Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) and the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, which is largely funded and run by Marines. It’s also something on which I spend a fair bit of my “real world” time. Abrogating and rationalizing (however gifted a legal scholar Prof Yoo may be) exceptions to the Geneva Conventions for spurious short-term interests sets a precedent for other states to copy our behavior with more egregious methods enabled by technology.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

"The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles."

Now what? We're not in a war with a nation state.

PSSST.. last I checked... we were an occupying force and acting as such... and conducting raids into peoples homes based on intelligence provided by?????? the neighbors... for money???? Get real here

They are ALL civilians.... if they are shooting at us... kill them.. but when you break into someones home in the middle of the night to "arrest" them.... sorry.. the GC DOES apply.

You have a hangup with Article 3 and completely IGNORE good old number 4.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The part you bolded is discussing civilians. The non-uniformed fighters are unlawful combatants, not civilians. If Joe Blow is arrested off the streets of Baghdad then he would be a civilian. Those actively engaging in a fight against our troops are not afforded the same status. POW status may be awarded but it is not required

So basically you want to categorize everyone picked up as an unlawful combatant..

Guess what.. Just because someone over there rats out some guy down the street.. or in the next villiage... does NOT mean they are acutally one of your scary terrorists.. no matter how much you want him to be one. His treatment is defined in Number 4 not number 3.

Tell it to Geneva.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Here's the correct legal truth:
A person under forcible detention in wartime is either (1) a combatant entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding combatants, (2) a civilian entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding civilians, or (3) a criminal suspect entitled to due process of law. THERE IS NO OTHER CATEGORY - PERIOD.

Which Act of the conventions state that?

Ah, I found it - the ICRC comments. The ICRC also states:

"2. Who is a combatant?

International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.

If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Re-read my post, take a deep breath, and try again. Someone arrested on the streets is a civilian. Somone who is actively participating in the fight against our troops is not a civilian.

Any who judges that and within what time frame?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The practices and behavior of these fighters en masse in combat deny them privileges as lawful belligerents entitled to combatant's privilege. The article argues that al-Qaeda unlawful combatants are most appropriately described as hostes humani generis, "the common enemies of humankind."

Al-Qaeda & Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed conflict
Air Force Law Review, Spring, 2004 by Joseph P. Bialke

Al-Qaeda & Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed conflict

Sounds like an intellectually provocative article - thanks for the citation. Printing it out to read.

The legal concept of hostes humani generis was originally applied to pirates & highway robbers.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Here's the correct legal truth:
A person under forcible detention in wartime is either (1) a combatant entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding combatants, (2) a civilian entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding civilians, or (3) a criminal suspect entitled to due process of law. THERE IS NO OTHER CATEGORY - PERIOD.

Which Act of the conventions state that?

Ah, I found it - the ICRC comments. The ICRC also states:

"2. Who is a combatant?

International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.

If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Yes, Mike. What you've just said & quoted and what I've been saying are completely consistent with each other: always treat them humanely, and either treat them as POWs under the GC, or promptly charge and prosecute them under civilian criminal law in accordance with due process of law. In other words, either treat them under "Rule A", or treat them under "Rule B." There is no "Rule C", nor are there simply "no rules" with respect to them.

I think you and I are pretty much in agreement with each other.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's the correct legal truth:
A person under forcible detention in wartime is either (1) a combatant entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding combatants, (2) a civilian entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding civilians, or (3) a criminal suspect entitled to due process of law. THERE IS NO OTHER CATEGORY - PERIOD.

Which Act of the conventions state that?

Ah, I found it - the ICRC comments. The ICRC also states:

"2. Who is a combatant?

International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.

If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Yes, Mike. What you've just said & quoted and what I've been saying are completely consistent with each other: always treat them humanely, and either treat them as POWs under the GC, or promptly charge and prosecute them under civilian criminal law in accordance with due process of law. In other words, either treat them under "Rule A", or treat them under "Rule B." There is no "Rule C", nor are there simply "no rules" with respect to them.

I think you and I are pretty much in agreement with each other.

Cool! Now back to the OP:

"Report finds Bush administration responsible for detainee abuse:

online.wsj.com/...l?mod=googlenews_wsj "

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

The point is, prisoners must be treated either as POWs in accordance with the GC, or as criminal defendants accorded the protections of due process of law, or both. But they cannot be treated as neither, and then on the strength of that convenient classification, treated inhumanely, or subject to conceivably indefinite detention without judicial process, just by declaring a "war on terrorism" to which there will never be an end.

Quote

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

That's just nonsense on the face of it. We may not know all of the torture that's gone on, but over the past few years we've gradually developed a general idea:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112501552_pf.html

Google "american - torture - waterboarding" sometime.

[frequentfaller 0]

Quote

Yes, Mike. What you've just said & quoted and what I've been saying are completely consistent with each other: always treat them humanely, and either treat them as POWs under the GC, or promptly charge and prosecute them under civilian criminal law in accordance with due process of law. In other words, either treat them under "Rule A", or treat them under "Rule B." There is no "Rule C", nor are there simply "no rules" with respect to them.

I think you and I are pretty much in agreement with each other.

rule A: naked pyramids bad food and torture in our military prisons.
rule B: torture no food in iraqi civilian prison and hung 2 days later.

Born ok 1st time.