Bush backs down: detainees to have protections of Geneva Conventions

Although this came up in a related thread (about the supreme court decision that affected this reversal), I think some of you might have missed the news, and it surely deserves its own thread.

In essence, the Bush Administration has now backed down and will henceforth recognise that all detainees in US custody--including Gitmo (and, one must assume, any 'ghost detainees' or detainees about to be 'rendered' to other governments)--now have the protections of common article 3 of the Geneva conventions.

The news came in the form of a memo from the office of the Secretary of Defense. You can read the actual memo here:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...tagon_memo.pdf

Commentary by news sites is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/wo...rtner=homepage

Common article 3 of the Geneva conventions state the following:

Quote:

---

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, colour, 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) The 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.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

---

One step on a long road. Now we just need to figure out how to get all the war criminals tried. Maybe we can save time and money by trying the al Qadea terrorists and various members of the Bush administration like Alberto Gonzales all at the same time? Let them share space in the Hague. :grin:

Bush makes a good call.....well....better late then never....


That´s it for the news.....Now here´s Tom with the weather:

"Hello, we are here in hell near the lake of eternal fire, and I have something surprising to report!
We are experiencing a drop in temperature and precipitation in the form of snow....it is official...
HELL AS FROZEN OVER!!!"

Dr. Phil has now weighed in on the whole situation.

Well, OK, not Dr. Phil... exactly.

http://media.theaustralian.news.com....uantanamo.html

Just found this clever animation. Heh. I especially like the ending. :grin:

How does article three, which concerns "case[s] of armed conflict not of an international character" affect the war on terror, in which the US, in North America, is fighting terrorists in central Asia, especially when article three further specifies these conflicts as "occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" when the Taliban did not sign the Geneva Conventions?

Or are facts just a thorn in the side of sticking it to Bush for the SCOTUS?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How does article three, which concerns "case[s] of armed conflict not of an international character" affect the war on terror, in which the US, in North America, is fighting terrorists in central Asia, especially when article three further specifies these conflicts as "occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" when the Taliban did not sign the Geneva Conventions?

---

I.e., not a war between nation-states.

Quote:

---

Or are facts just a thorn in the side of sticking it to Bush for the SCOTUS?

---

What on earth are you talking about? I'm merely pointing out the facts here. Although I'm sure you feel, as Stephen Colbert does, that reality has a well-known leftist bias.

A victory for terrorists and liberals all on one day. Congrats...:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How does article three, which concerns "case[s] of armed conflict not of an international character" affect the war on terror, in which the US, in North America, is fighting terrorists in central Asia, especially when article three further specifies these conflicts as "occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" when the Taliban did not sign the Geneva Conventions?

Or are facts just a thorn in the side of sticking it to Bush for the SCOTUS?

Crazed Rabbit

---

You are correct. The Taliban didn't sign the Geneva Conventions. Neither did the Bush adminstration. However, both the USA and Afghanistan signed the 4th Geneva Conventions. Both countries are signatories to the 4th GC. And neither country has officially withdrawn from the treaty. Just because the government of a country changes, does not automatically mean it is no longer a signatory.

So, since the Taliban didn't repudiate the 4th Geneva Convention, Afghanistan was still a "High Contracting Party" at the time of the U.S. invasion. :grin:

Lets reward of the Gitmo detainees with citizenship in the United States. After all, they are innocent and have been nothing but a smoke and mirrors distraction orchestrated by the Imperialistic Bush. Bush is the terrorist; these detainees have all been inncoently caught in the Bush net against international detractors. We should give them large sums of money and provide them shelter in the heart of our nation. Let us hold them close to us, stroking them as we would a pet. Then let us call on the impeachment of the evil Bush for waging evil wars against the wordl. We in America deserved 9/11 for our selfish foreign policy abroad!

Oh and... Why do you hate freedom?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

I.e., not a war between nation-states.

---

I think it is pretty clear it refers to a civil war. If one side is a nation (i.e. the USA) then the fighting in Afghanistan is rather international.

Aenlic, your example is flawed. The USA has the same system of government that signed the GC. The Bush administration is merely a continuation. The Taliban were not.

Also, it would seem you are defining countries as areas of land. Areas of land are lines on a map. What matters is what the people who control the land sign. The Taliban never signed the GC. Since they are not a continuation, as it were, of the gov't that did, then it was not necessary for them to repudiate it for them not to be signatories. Nor does the land known as Afghanistan carry with it inherent acceptance of the GC by its rulers.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

One step on a long road.

---

I agree. They deserve to be protected under the Geneva Codes. They are, after all, POWS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I think it is pretty clear it refers to a civil war. If one side is a nation (i.e. the USA) then the fighting in Afghanistan is rather international.

Aenlic, your example is flawed. The USA has the same system of government that signed the GC. The Bush administration is merely a continuation. The Taliban were not.

Also, it would seem you are defining countries as areas of land. Areas of land are lines on a map. What matters is what the people who control the land sign. The Taliban never signed the GC. Since they are not a continuation, as it were, of the gov't that did, then it was not necessary for them to repudiate it for them not to be signatories. Nor does the land known as Afghanistan carry with it inherent acceptance of the GC by its rulers.

Crazed Rabbit

---

The US sets an example for many other smaller, less powerful countries to follow. The way our leaders decide to treat our prisoners is reflected up us. Thus, it is prudent to treat them in a manner befitting a human being.

I think the manner they've been treated in is good enough. It's not like we've been routinely torturing them (there have been cases, very infrequent, of such events, and I want the people who torture to recieve full punishment).

If we are going to complain about treatment of prisoners, why don't we complain first about the biggest offenders?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I think it is pretty clear it refers to a civil war. If one side is a nation (i.e. the USA) then the fighting in Afghanistan is rather international.

Aenlic, your example is flawed. The USA has the same system of government that signed the GC. The Bush administration is merely a continuation. The Taliban were not.

Also, it would seem you are defining countries as areas of land. Areas of land are lines on a map. What matters is what the people who control the land sign. The Taliban never signed the GC. Since they are not a continuation, as it were, of the gov't that did, then it was not necessary for them to repudiate it for them not to be signatories. Nor does the land known as Afghanistan carry with it inherent acceptance of the GC by its rulers.

Crazed Rabbit

---

So...

Russia is not subject to the Geneva Conventions because their system of government is different now than the one which was in place when the USSR signed the conventions? Guess what. The ICRC doesn't list the USSR as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, even though they signed the GC in 1949 and ratified it in 1954. Who does the ICRC list as the signatory since the USSR no longer exists? The Russian Federation. The Russian Federation didn't exist in 1949 or 1954. They have also not, as the Russian Federation, signed the document. Because they haven't ratified the document, they aren't party to it? Thay's what your logic suggests. That isn't the case. They are considered to be the signatory from 1949 when most of the current Russian Federation was the USSR.

Want more examples? How about Cambodia? They signed in 1958. Want to count the number of different types of governments Cambodia has had since 1958? :grin:

Any other countries with completely differentr government, not just continuations, which you claim to be necessary?

I already listed Afghanistan. Bulgaria? Are they still the same government which signed in 1949? Haiti, in 1957? Hungary in 1949? Iran in 1949? Iraq in 1956? Laos in 1956? Lebanon in 1949? Poland in 1949? Romania in 1950? Somalia in 1962? How about South Africa in 1952?

How about Cuba? They signed in 1948 and ratified in 1954. Hmm, but that was Batista's government, not Castro's.

I'm afraid that it's your logic which is flawed, CR. Sorry, man. :wink:

Are all of those countries and more which have had revolutions and often violent changes of government since they signed, no longer covered by the Geneva Conventions? According to the ICRC, they are all signatories on the dates given, in spite of the changes in government.

Unless a new government specifically repudiates the GC, and none have (well... except the United States, using this "logic" of yours), they are still considered by International Law to be signatories since the date signed. New countries, formed since the signing actually have to sign the treaties. like Eritrea in 2000 or Macedonia (OK, OK, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in 1993, or the Czech Republic and Slovakia which signed separately in 1993. None of the countries which signed have to resign when their government changes. Germany didn't have to re-sign when it ceased being the FRG and the DDR. Cuba didn't have to re-sign when Casto took over. And...

Afghanistan didn't have to re-sign when the Taliban took over or when Karzai's government took over. Iraq didn't have to re-sign when the monarchy was overthrown in 1958, when Qassim was overthrown in 1963, when Arif was overthrown in 1968, when Saddam was overthrown in 2003, or when the new government was finally formed last year.

And the SCOTUS agrees.

I rest my case. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

If we are going to complain about treatment of prisoners, why don't we complain first about the biggest offenders?

---

Because they're not us, ie. the West? Keep your own house clean before you worry about the neighbors.