Wingnut Claim: Geneva Doesn't Apply to Accused Terrorists

[durutti]

Wingnuts have recently been trying to argue that the Geneva conventiosn don't apply to prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, since they're not states. Anyone have links to any detailed refutations of this claim?

[DinahMoeHum]

1. Earth to this wingnut: Abu Ghraib prisoners were/are IRAQIS

in their OWN home country!!

Plain logic, nothing more.


:bounce:

[Bill McBlueState]

2. I wonder how many wingnuts...

I wonder how many wingnuts even know where Abu Ghraib is.

[havocmom]

3. Ah, that assertion certainly simplifies things for them.

Accuse anyone you don't like of being a terrorist and then you can do whatever you like to them! What a concept!

So, can we accuse members of the bush*/Cheney junta of terrorism and them subject them to whatever it takes to get them to confess their crimes against us and the rest of humanity? How about neighbors we don't like, do we get to accuse them too? How about people in our communities whose politics we don't approve of?

How do they feel about the possibility of somebody besides them doing the accusing? Suddenly, they might see an accusation is not the same as proof and voice a bit of concern about the notion the Geneva Convention would not apply if it was their naked bits in front of snarling dogs.

It boggles the mind that they do not see the abandoning of mutually agreed upon laws for conduct means the end of all they claim to stand for. And they dare to call us unAmerican.

[WilliamPitt]

4. That might be accurate

but the 41,000+ detainees in Iraq were not terrorists.

[htuttle]

6. It's not accurate

And having read the Geneva Conventions recently, I'd like someone to point out where in the text they interpret it to mean that 'accused terrorists are not covered'.

Even enemy spies are protected from abuse by Geneva. The only difference with spies is that you aren't required to notify their home country that they've been caught right away. However, even an enemy spy is allowed a hearing to determine whether or not they are actually a spy.

Under the Geneva Conventions, EVERBODY is protected from abuse and torture. There are different rules regarding other factors for combatants vs non-combatants, but nobody is 'allowed' to be tortured under Geneva.

[bryant69]

14. What are Terrorists?

Are they Civilians? Are they combatents?

In a perfect world, they nab Terrorist Joe at a Seven 11 in Raleigh North Carolina. What happens to him?

Do we turn him back over to the country of his origin? What if that country has a history of not persecuting terrorists? Do we keep him? How long are we allowed to keep him?

Can we interrogate him? How strenuously? The old lamp in the face and drinking water? Good Cop Bad Cop? What if we think he has information on an upcoming terrorist action?

Can we execute him? Can we even put him on trial?

How does the Geneva Convention answer these questions?

Anyway, as others have pointed out, the Geneva Convention clearly applies in Iraq; so this issue doesn't really apply there. Iraqi Civilians or Combatents are all protected by it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[The Magistrate]

8. It Is An Interesting Question, Mr. Pitt

A technical argument could be made concerning al Queda members and some Iraqi resistance fighters for the proposition, though in my view that argument falls short in important regards.

The basic argument is that the Geneva treaties bind signatory states in their actions towards the forces and peoples of other signatory states. Al Queda is not a state, let alone a signatory state, and thus members of that organization can be said to be outside the Geneva treaties. However, the Geneva treaties require signatories to adhere to a basic code even in conflict with forces of states that have not signed the Accords, and the Geneva treaties also bind signatories in dealing with irregular partisan and guerrilla forces opposing them, and such forces are never the regular expressions of any state, signatory or no, nor are they organizations that can be signatory parties to those treaties.

The second argument turns on the catagory of illegal combatant, or in other words, combatants who have violated themselves the Geneva treaties, if signatories to them or no. This catagory could well include many members of al Queada, and Iraqi resistance fighters who have attacked non-combatants, such as United Nations personnel, or Iraqi citizens who are not members of the puppet authority's forces. However, the status of illegal combatant cannot, under the Geneva treaties, be simply declared by executive fiat. It must be determined by an evidentiary hearing before a tribunal, on a case by case basis. No such proceeding has yet been held by U.S. authorities in any case regarding any prisoner held in any U.S. facility, whether at Guantanemo or in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

Further, in regards specifically to Iraq, the provisions of the Geneva treaty state specifically that in occupied territory, the treaty provisions extend to any person not a citizen of the occupying power. This provision is designed to protect resident aliens, travellers caught by the events, and such like, as well as citizens of the occupied power, but the language is broad and inclusive. It would most likely be interperted by a court as including foreign persons coming to assist a resistance to the occupying power, even as individuals, and so include even members of al Queda in Iraq. For there is no doubt whatever the United States in an occupying power in that country.

[Moochy]

5. Quaint Provisions of Geneva Convention

It's just a restatement of WH Counsel's Alberto Gonzalez view of the Geneva convention:

"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

taken from :http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003944.php

[alfredo]

18. It may be quaint, but it is still the law of the land according to

Article VI of the US Constitution.

[pop goes the weasel]

7. huh?

Abu Ghraib isn't a state, but it is *in* a state.

As for Guantanamo, the fact that the US has located a prison on land it exercises sovereignty over but doesn't possess does not impress anyone in the world except for wingnuts and Bushies as a valid excuse for torture and false imprisonment. The only source you need to explain that is yourself.

[karabekian]

9. here are the actual conventions

I am gonna read through them and see.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm">Geneva Convention

I am pretty sure that they were made for regular armies that represent a state. I would lean towards that they do not apply to terrorists like Al-Queda members but I am gonna scan through them and see.

[karabekian]

10. Check articles 37 and on.

I think thats the right section.

[karabekian]

11. actually I believe this addresses the issue

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.

[alfredo]

17. Artcle 44-45 of the 1949 Geneva Convention

needs your attention. I am writing an article on it now.

Remember Article VI of the US constitution makes any treaty signed and ratified the supreme law of the land.

[alfredo]

19. It may not apply to them as far as being considered POW's but

article 75 sets standards of treatment.

[LoneStarLiberal]

12. Hmmm...Iraqis...In Iraq...

Just because they are too ignorant to understand that Iraq is a state and that detaining citizens of that state IN that state is in fact detaining foreign nationals in a state-level conflict doesn't mean the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

Tell them to wipe their chins and move on to something else.

[Wapsie B]

13. To a wingnut, if you're accused of something,

you're automatically guilty. That goes for Iraq, Gitmo, and here in the states. Black and white logic is so comforting.

[never cry wolf]

15. It was bunnypants and gonzales that declared that unilaterally

Geneva itself does have rules for terrorists, which the Iraqis weren't.

terrorism

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)


http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[Bandit]

16. Why are they so adamant that they don't want to follow humane action

It is a testiment to their inhumanity. Why would anyone argue that we don't have to treat people with dignaty and respect no matter what crime they may be charged with. Remember none of these people have had a trial and been convicted of any wrong doing at all. They are only suspects or just common civilians and Republicans want to torture them. They are trying to say legally they can torture all they want. Maybe they can since they write the laws but what does their humanity say? Torture good in Bush* Amerika. They should be very ashamed instead of trying to justify it. Remember Freepers "What goes around Comes around" You want to legalize torture then don't bitch when our guys are on the receiving end. And they most certainly will be on the receiving end and it all falls on your shoulders.