Bush backs down: detainees to have protections of Geneva Conventions

**Hurin_Rules** · 07-11-2006, 20:31

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:

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.

**Aenlic** · 07-11-2006, 20:37

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.

**Ronin** · 07-11-2006, 20:43

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!!!"

**Aenlic** · 07-11-2006, 23:41

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.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 07-12-2006, 00:20

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

**Hurin_Rules** · 07-12-2006, 00:24

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.

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.

**Devastatin Dave** · 07-12-2006, 00:26

A victory for terrorists and liberals all on one day. Congrats...

**Aenlic** · 07-12-2006, 00:40

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.

**Ice** · 07-12-2006, 01:07

One step on a long road.

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

**Divinus Arma** · 07-12-2006, 00:59

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!