June 16, 2005

Why Geneva Does Not Apply At Gitmo

Let's be really clear for Senator Dick-less Durbin about why US policy at Guantanamo Bay regarding the non-applicability of the Geneva Convention is perfectly correct.

Here's who the Geneva Conventions cover.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Of these categories of persons, only #2 could be held to apply -- except for the fact that the terrorists violate conditions b, c, and d, putting them outside the framework established by the Geneva Convention. So while we generally give them treatment consistent with the Geneva Convention, any deviation is not a violation because they are not covered in the first place.

Hat Tip: GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 05:24 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

1 However, "The Judge" Napolitano on Fox last night cited another Geneva provision that says tribunals must determine the exact status of captured combatants. Apparently, the US hasn't formally done that yet.

Posted by: Hube at Fri Jun 17 03:33:37 2005 (hCXVm)

2 Durbin was reading from a report by a FBI agent, yet the right-wing blowhard crowd tried to spin this as Durbin's own words.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Fri Jun 17 16:53:18 2005 (aHbua)

3 Actually, the words were Durbin's, for all the left-wing kneepad brigade tries to spin it otherwise.

The unsubstantiated charges (labelled as such by the report) are from the report, but the characterization of them as similar to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Khmer Rouge Cambodia was the product of Durbin's own fevered imagination.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 17 17:47:32 2005 (JxF3+)

4 Yet you are not troubled by the report, but rather the words of Durbin. This shows me exactly what kind of weasles you and the rest of your right-wing bretheren really are.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sat Jun 18 00:00:48 2005 (aHbua)

5 Have you actually read the report?

Loud music and extreme temperatures? Heck, sounds like at least three of my former workplaces, not a concentration camp, gulag, or reeducation camp..

And besides, we've seen from the al-qaeda training manuals that these folks are trained to make false torture claims at every opportunity.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 18 01:32:26 2005 (Rb8P4)

6 3Bs -- it appears RWR is correct that Durbin embellished the FBI agent's remarks: link.

Posted by: Hube at Sat Jun 18 04:25:56 2005 (2sYx6)

7 Check that: Fox is incorrect, it seems. The memos cited by Durbin are publicly available. See Media Matters.

Posted by: Hube at Sat Jun 18 04:45:01 2005 (2sYx6)

8 Would you mind giving this a reliable source, not Media Matters. After all, David Brock is a confessed pathological liar.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 18 04:59:47 2005 (Rb8P4)

9 How come we don't see Liberals lambasting for the treatment of hostages put in 4x4 cages? And then later their head is sawed off.

People who make unreal and dishonest comparisons of Gitmo to that of Gulags and such are supporting and helping the enemy. Is it not any wonder that al Jazeera ran Durbin's comment multitudes of times to make a point and a case on the terrorists' behalf? No wonder the terrorists are laughing because idiots Liberals want to wring their hands over club Gitmo!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 18 05:20:48 2005 (U5Ldx)

10 You have to understand, mcconnell, that such condemnations would require Liberals to impose their personal, Western morality upon non-Western people who they do not see as capable of living up to the standards of Western civilization.

Ultimately, it comes down to the Left believing that such folks cannot aspire to reach the standards set by Western civilization -- and certain racist assumptions that underlie that.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 18 05:50:01 2005 (1haYf)

11 Agreed. However, my comment back there was pretty much a rhetorical question. Tried to draw a parallel on their ideology of hate. And when that happens they've become oblivious to their own stupidity.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 18 08:32:01 2005 (SALCs)

12 How's about the simple fact we are supposed to ne above that shit. No other arguement is acceptable, and if you think there is one than I submit it is you and not those of us protesting that are Un-American. esides I did my six years of military service so go fuck youselves when you question my patriotism.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sat Jun 18 13:19:33 2005 (aHbua)

13 Oh -- no other argument is acceptable? Are you attempting to define for me what i must believe in order to be a good American? I thought you Leftists didn't believe in doing such things, and considered that to be a form of Fascism?

And as far as the "I served" argument goes -- so did Benedict Arnold. So did Tim McVeigh. So did Lee Harvey Oswald. So did John Muhammad. And while I'm not comparing you to them, I hope you see that such the argument you put forth is so much crap.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 18 14:21:07 2005 (5kG8+)

14 anybody who served in the military deserve my respect. However, comparing Gitmo to that of the Gulags or Pol Pot is beyond reprehensible. In fact, downright dangerous and irresponsible by giving the enemy the morale boost because of Leftists hand wringing over some song being played 24/7. Anything to do to score points, even if it means giving a cache-ful of ammo dump over to the enemy to be used against us when it was ludicrous in the first place.

These are the worst of the bunch we've captured. And we're at war with the enemy. And we do what we must do to extract information and figure out who's who. Saying "Pretty please" ain't gonna work. And they aren't children, either, with "childlike innocence", which is the biggest crapper of them all. Mohammed Atta was university taught.

Remember, we're at war. If ya'll want to go to war, you need to remember there'll be more Gitmos in the future...preferrably the next time it'd be at the artic circle station in Alaska.



Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 18 17:27:28 2005 (U5Ldx)

15 All I can say in response to MCConnell is , where's your proof that these are the worst of the worst. Have you seen anyone of them so much as arraigned yet? I know I haven't, and if they have been why was it done in secret? Again I reiterate, we as a nation are supposed to be above that type of shit.

Augusto Pinochet was fond of secret "arraignmants", as was Stalin, but we're better than Hitler since he made no pretense, and just disappeared your ass to the concentration camps.

The very idea that we're engaging in interogation techniques that are open to interpretation as torture should trouble ALL AMERICANS. This is not what we are supposed to be about, besides torture almost never "works" as any intelligence you get is suspect. If you don't think so, ask John McCain, or any other American that served as a POW. The most disgusting thing is the argument that these detainees do not qualify as POWs. Tell you hypocrites what, when the inevitable happens and an American soldier is detained, and not accorded rights under Geneva IV, don't go squealing about the "enemy" violating our troops "rights". Remember WE set the precedent for this.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sat Jun 18 19:27:44 2005 (aHbua)

16 Enemies captured during time of war don't get arraigned, you leftist moron.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 01:16:22 2005 (XJvMc)

17 bubba, we're at war. I'd rather leave open the possible use of interrogation techniques rather than outright forbidding them. I don't condone pulling of fingernails, however if he has knowledge of a briefcase nuclear bomb hidden somewhere on the east coast then go for it.

Oh, so the massive reconstruction efforts in Iraq are not worth mentioning in the newspapers? But Club Gitmo is?

I guess it's very important for Leftist American to ensure that America look and behave like a paper tiger then? Giving the enemy an upper hand? That's exactly what Durbin did.







Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 03:29:43 2005 (jXhtw)

18 Oh, btw, I'm sure Leftist Americans will surely raise hue and cry over the 4 Iraqi (border guards) hostages rescued by Marines. Hostages were brutally tortured by their capturers with whips, electrocution, bathtub filled with water, lack of food, unsanitary conditions, NO AIR CONDITIONING BY GOD!, etc..etc...
Kind of put the "childlike innocence" of the aggressors to a different level, eh? Where's the condemnation, bubba?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/18/otsc.arraf/index.html

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 03:44:11 2005 (jXhtw)

19 Don't you realize -- according to the Left, Iraqis who help the US are no different than those who collaborated with the Nazis.

Never mind the free and fair elections earlier this fall that clearly represent the will of the Iraqi people -- or that the "insurgents" are, in fact, foreign terrorists who target the Iraqi people with daily terror attacks. Those murderers are the moral equivalent of the Minute Men (just ask Michael Moore) or the French Resistance (ask Dick-less Durbin).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 04:00:47 2005 (3JAqj)

20 RWR: I detest Brock and MM as much as the next guy, but their links, even though their own, appear to connect to authentic documents.

Posted by: Hube at Sun Jun 19 04:07:27 2005 (+AbeZ)

21 Gee you mean the massive reconstruction being done by Bechtel, and Halliburton? Both corporations with near improper ties to this administration? The massive reconstruction that has eight BILLION missing? $8,000,000,000.00 Do you have any idea how much cash that is? We could do a shit-load of good with that missing money. The head-in-the-sand followers of the "Boy-King" would rather turn a blind eye to this, and listen to the crock-of-shit fictions about the insurgency being in its "Last Throes". Since Mr. Know-It-All RWR is an alleged history teacher maybe he can answer this question: " In what year was the first American casualty in Vietnam, and how many years did it take to get to 1700?" Answer me that then tell me why I should believe the lies that this administration (or any other) spew.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 04:19:27 2005 (aHbua)

22 Answering your questions gets sorta difficult, depending upon when you want to officially classify the involvement in Vietnam as having started (do you go all the way back to the advisors under Eisenhower, or do you start with the Kennedy Administration?)

Taking the figures I have at hand,, which start in 1961, it took until some time in the middle of 1965 to reach the 1700th casualty. The involvement, of course, was rather different, and so the relative lengths of time are not really comparable, given the significantly lower number of troops in Vietnam at the time. I would therefore have to argue that the relative rates, taken per 100 troops in country, was higher in Vietnam than in Iraq.

As for your DNC.Michael Moore talking points, don't forget that Halliburton and Bechtel have a long history of military contracts dating back decades under both GOP and Jackass Party administrations.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 05:39:38 2005 (rMdBV)

23 Well if you must know our "involvement" in Vietnam began in 1945, when an OSS Lt. Colonel (one, A. Peter Dewey, on Sept 26 1945) was killed in the then Saigon. So we're looking at a twenty year span to reach 1700. As I knew, you did not know the correct answer, none of your fellow wingnut pricks seem to either. Some history teacher you are.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 06:26:46 2005 (aHbua)

24 Like I said -- it depends on what year you want to start counting and define as the beginning of US involvement. As I recall, for purposes of including folks on the Wall the starting date is in the late 1950s, after the French ran away. I had figures handy dating from the early 1960s, when our involvement became more formal. But I won't dispute you on your point factual information there -- but will dispiute whether it signifies what you want it to signify. After all, for most of that period we are talking about a "troop commitment" of under 100 men, so the figures are not comparable.

Heck, I'm suure some sailor on liberty got knifed in a brothel or a bar fight several decades before the casualty you cited -- why don't you start counting there?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 06:43:07 2005 (rMdBV)

25 Oh, and I'd like to apologize for the fact that, for all my encyclopedic knowledge of several millenia of human history, I wasn't able to immediately give a flawless interpretation to your ambiguous question, nor was I able to produce the date and name you requested.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 06:45:34 2005 (rMdBV)

26 Maybe you could have answered if you paid attention in the late 70's and early 80's when the now "definitive" documentary ("Vietman, The 10,000 Day War")and companion book (Vietnam: A History, Stanley Karnow) were around. You obviously neither watched the show, nor read the book.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 07:01:47 2005 (aHbua)

27 Actually, I watched and read them.

And i repeat -- it all depends upon your choice of start date.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 07:17:57 2005 (rMdBV)

28 You read them and you fail to see the analogies between the "insurgencies" in both instances? What have we actualluy gained in Iraq? Has the "Boy-King's" misadventure actually made us more safe? Are our ports really anymore secure than they were on Sept 10, 2001? I submit to you that my perception of 9-11 is a bit different, being less than 90 miles away from the WTC, than is your perception being 1500 miles away. You only think your region will someday be a "target" we know damed well if the terrorists strike again, NYC or Washington DC are prime targets. Frankly the terrorists don't give a damn about Houston, or virtually any other of the "heartland" cities, they want NYC, Wash DC, LA, or Chicago, maybe a Philadelphia, or Boston, but beyond them, there is just not enough "instant media" reaponse in the rest of the U.S. for them to care.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 08:07:29 2005 (aHbua)

29 I read them, understood them, and disagree with your analysis.

And I think you might benefit from checking out the port facilities here in Houston, America's fourth largest city and the home of a huge proportion of the nation's petrochemical refining capacity LOCATED RIGHT IN THE HOME STATE OF THE PRESIDENT AND IN THE CITY WHERE HIS PARENTS LIVE. Houston is a rather juicy target, if you think about it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 09:27:37 2005 (9thpR)

30 Actually, Seattle was also a target.

"Ressam, 32, was arrested December 14 at a Port Angeles, Washington, at a border crossing. He was in a rental car authorities said contained bomb-making materials. Experts have estimated the amount of explosives could have destroyed a large office building. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/21/border.arrest.01/

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 12:13:03 2005 (SALCs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
26kb generated in CPU 0.0086, elapsed 0.016 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0094 seconds, 59 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]