Geneva Convention III (1949)

[SoCalifer]

Correct me if I am wrong. But in reading these provisions of the Geneva Convention below, plus if you read further the part where it says that "the power" detaining prisoners is the responsible party. Isn't George Bush guilty of being a War Criminal?

http://www.detrick.army.mil/usag/sps/sja/gcIII.pdf





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.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

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.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.





Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the 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.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) he passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

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



Contracting Parties: (click the 140kb pdf file on this page) > http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList133/77EA1BDEE20B4CCDC1256B6600595596

For reference of paragraph one of Article 3. Notice that both territories of Afghanistan and Iraq are contracting parties. And that this conflict we are having within both of them are ones not of an international character - such as Bush himself has proclaimed when he said we are at war with Al-Queada in Afghanistan and Insurgents in Iraq, not their respective governments.

[CindyDale]

1. Nnt unless he approved of the violations

[CindyDale]

3. Approved, I mean, not "approved of"

I'm not an attorney, but I think they are saying that these people acted on their own.

[SoCalifer]

6. Yes They May Have Acted On Their Own

BUT:

If you download and read further.

In Part II (General Provisions Of War):

Article 12:

"Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them."

[FreedomAngel82]

9. The whole Iraq war

is illegal and makes him a criminal. Of course he goes off jack free seen as a liberator. :grr:

[Just Me]

2. In short, the answer is "yes".

Thank you for posting that. It proves that Gonzales interpretation is not only incorrect but "makes up" new law. I'm pretty sure he did so at his bosses direction. That does not exonerate him from responsibility however.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. It's not a tenable position

Considering how much memoranda there was from legal councils in various departments about how to get around the Geneva Conventions (which Gonzales maintained were "quaint" and "obsolete"), it is hard to say that anyone at Abu Ghriab or Guantanamo or Afghanistan or any part of Bush's network of offshore gulags was acting "on his own".

Please click here.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. The short answer is Yes, he is

So anre many mmebers of his administration, including Mr. Gonzales and Dr. Rice.

The Third and Fourth Geneva conventions specify the treatment of prisoners taken in combat. Specifically, they are to be regarded as Prisoners of War until a court, not an executive, determines otherwise. COnsequently, all detainees at Guantanamo are, at least as of this moment, prisoners of war, since no court has ruled them otherwise.

Torture is specifically prohibited. Most reasonable people would understand waterbording, sleep and senosory deprivation, subjection to extreme heat and cold and forcing a detainee to stand for hours and other so-called "aggressive interrogation methods" to be torture.

Moreover, the United States is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the Bush administration, with the legal advice of Mr. Gonzales, has routinely violated.

[SoCalifer]

7. Jack Rabbit

Thank you for the links.. When I get back from my Union Meeting tonight. I look forward to reviewing them..

[unpossibles]

8. sadly, does anyone on the "other side" even care? n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

10. Probably not

*sigh* Where is John Kerry the investigator when we need him? Any way he could help with this? :shrug: