The Geneva Convention addresses combatants in uniform fighting for a country at war with another country - both of whom signed the Geneva Convention.

Questions, Jeffc,
1. Uniforms?
2. Which country that signed the Geneva Convention do these low life scum bags claim they are fighting for?
3. How about treating them like spies and sabatours? What happens to them under the Geneva Convention, Jeffc?
4. Have you read the document?
5. Do you love your country? Meaning the US of A in case you thought that was a trick question.

Yes I have read the Geneva Conventions and am intimately familiar with them. You are simply wrong in your interpretation. I am posting earlier blogs which I hope answer your questions.
I am constantly amazed how radical the Republican Party has become where now it is routine to be asked if I love my country because I oppose torture and wish for the country to abide by international law. When you finish reading my response concerning the Geneva Convention, come back here and read Ronald Reagan’s address to the Senate when he submitted the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment treaty that he negotiated:

Ronald Reagan address and test of convention

I am posting a link to a previous response I made here:

Geneva Convention

And I am cutting and pasting another response I made here because the link is seemingly inaccessible.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is the legal arbiter of what the Geneva Conventions mean. Here is a link to a press release from the ICRC in which there legal department makes it explicitly clear:

"Article three applies to anybody -- the Northern Alliance, the Taliban, al Qaeda, anybody fighting in the territory," said Catherine Deman, legal adviser to the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Geneva Conventions Apply Even in Afghanistan -- ICRC

There is lots of follow-up on the ICRC website but there is no question at all that the Conventions cover everybody including terrorists.

As to US law and the Bush administration, The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions.
This is now the law of the land and has been incorporated into the military under DOD Directive 2310.01E on DOD’s detainee program and the new Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations, both released Sept. 6, 2006.

The Fourth Geneva Convention in Article 5 specifically focuses on spies, saboteurs and others hostile to a detaining power who, by definition under that treaty’s Article 4, are not considered regular POW’s.

You are also incorrect when you stated: “That is why the terrorists at Guantanamo are called DETAINEES!” Exclamation point!

They were not called “detainees” they were called “enemy combatants” specifically because there was no definition of “enemy combatants” in the Geneva Conventions and the Bush administration was trying not to have the Conventions apply, leading directly to the Supreme Court decision in Hamden v. Rumsfeld.

Regardless of what they are called, anybody who is not an automatic POW (i.e. being captured in uniform) is still considered a POW until a competent tribunal is held as declared in Article 5:

Article 5

“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”

This is why the Bush administration has gone to such lengths to try to legitimize their proposed kangaroo court military tribunals; to get them to declare the detainees somehow eligible to be tried without allowing evidence they had been tortured. This is why they are so desperate to suspend Habeus Corpus.

Incidentally, to protect against just such abuse by the government; the fundamental right allowing persons redress to the courts against the government, is why the founding fathers specifically disallowed suspension of Habeus Corpus in the Constitution and why the Bush administration are doomed to failure too.

If the administration had not tortured the prisoners and now justly fear that their war crimes will be revealed in a court of law or that the torture will negate any evidence thus obtained, they could have tried the detainees as agent provocateurs, saboteurs, terrorists or spies in either a civilian or military court or they could have tried them as individuals for war crimes.

It was the administration’s use of torture, in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which has precluded the administration from following established military and civilian judicial paths to prosecute the terrorists.

Obviously, you will disagree.

"Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 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.
* 4.1.6 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.
* 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy."

To the point, 4.1.2

What say you?

Well if they aren't prisoners of war, and they don't deserve civilian trials, and they are sitting in incarceration for several years with no rights, just how do we know that they are all guilty of something?

If they were prisoners of war we could hold them as they are, under the Geneva Convention for the duration of the war. However we couldn't "waterboard" them!

If they are not prisoners of war, and are not spys, then they are civilians of some country.

How should these "people" treat our prisoners? As we do theirs, or better?

I don't know the circumstance of every arrest in the case of the terrorist prisoners, if they are all terrorists, but I suppose they could also call our civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan that they capture, as terrorists. They are aiding the enemy!

Frankly, what usually happens in the case of most of these types of prisoners is that they are killed in the field and left for their comrades to pick up.

We kept a number of them for some reason, information, I suppose, and killed others.

To be killed on the battlefield is much different than what we have for some of these people. If we were to enter any part of Africa to resolve a serious problem (and many other places) we would find ourself also fighting non-uniformed and civilian forces on the battlefield.

Many German, Italian, and Japanese, and Korean, and Vietnamese civilians killed us during those wars!

We would do no less here if invaded! They are prisoners.

Terrorists should not be regarded as POW’s, you are exactly right. I have written extensively here previously and in my cutting and pasting maybe did not accurately convey what the Geneva Conventions (GC’s) say (and with which I agree).

The GC’s say (in Article 5) that UNTIL a prisoner’s status has been determined then they automatically have POW rights. If they are captured in uniform (or fit any of the list you provided from Article 4), they are automatically classed as POW’s (except in very limited circumstances). If they are captured out of uniform, as would apply to all terrorists, then they have POW rights UNTIL a “competent tribunal” determines their status. This is why the Bush administration tried to invent their new military tribunals; to satisfy this provision of the GC’s. (The Supreme Court struck them down in Hamden v Rumsfeld for technical reasons but that is a side issue. The US is certainly capable of convening a competent tribunal if it wants to).

After the competent tribunal decides, POW status can be revoked and this is very important for two main reasons. A POW cannot be tried for what would otherwise be a crime if it was carried out outside of a conflict. Specifically, a POW cannot be charged or tried for murder for killing someone during the course of a war. Secondly, a POW must be released at the end of hostilities.

In the case of a terrorist being captured it is perfectly legal for the United States to have a tribunal declare that he is not a POW; try him in a public trail, closed trial or military court (including restricting access to classified information… perfectly legal), and the terrorist can be charged with murder and they can be sentenced to be held past the end of hostilities or they can be sentenced with the death penalty.

We are stuck at the first step and the administration is in trouble because they allowed the torture of the prisoners and all of their machinations have centered around not allowing evidence of that torture to come out in court. Because of this, we cannot get a “competent tribunal” to declare that the prisoners do not have POW status. Until that ruling, under the GC’s and international and US law, the prisoners are legally classed as POW’s.

The GC’s are perfectly capable of handling terrorist cases under US and international law. The Conventions were written by us to protect our troops in times of war. They are not some nefarious international plot to undermine the United States. Of course there are people and terrorist who will violate them. When they do, they are then subject to arrest for war crimes in the 194 signatory countries.

Eventually, what I think will happen, is that the Supreme Court will force the administration to hold tribunals whereby the evidence of their torture is can be presented in court. Although this will be embarrassing and may make members of the administration subject to war crimes charges, it does not automatically free the terrorist nor does it automatically negate the evidence. Rumsfeld, Cheney and company brought this on themselves by allegedly resorting to torture in violation of US and international law. This is truly unfortunately but hardly the fault of the Supreme Court.

------------------
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years. Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me. I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years." John McCain

Great!
Now, why give these scumbags any status at all? Do you think they would treat our captured spies and hit men (yes we have them you lily livered white boy) with the same respect and compassion that we have shown?

On a similar subject, mild torture aka waterboarding is fine with me. Look at the info we got. Again, how would they treat our spies? Not uniformed soldiers - spies. Answer the question jeffc.

And don't hide behind the "We are above that" crap. This is a different war with a very different enemy. Isn't it?

I am not willing to concede to you that Americans are "above that crap". Sorry. For me there are certain things that the United States is above, it is what defines us as Americans. Your complaint about how they would treat our spies falls on deaf ears for me. The obvious conclusion of your argument is that no matter how barbaric any action taken by any country is then it is okay by you to follow them down to the lowest level no matter what.

I totally reject that. To me there is a difference between my idea of America and your concept of what is allowable. It is a free country and you can embrace torture and you can characterize following international and US law as "crap" and you promote the idea that there is no bottom, no morality, and no barbaric act which can be perpetrated by our enemies that you are not willing to embrace as acceptable and wish to emulate all you want but you will not change my mind.

If you feel that way, what exactly is the difference between your position and that of Zimbabwe? Just a little bit of torture? Really, tell me how you are any different from Mugabe? Is there even a minute difference between your position an Mugabe's that you can articulate here and be consistent with your last post?

I totally reject your point of view.

Do what they would do - decapitate them and toss their bodies in a pit of dead pigs. (It really disturbs Muslims to be dismembered and mixed with Pig parts.)

Before you kill them tell them the 72 virgins are all guys.

SunTzu would be proud. War is hell boys.

Sniffles05 The Plagiarizer in Chief
Sniffles05:Angry and often proven wrong.

No matter what the depths of their depravity you are right there with them.

And that makes you superior to them how?

People like tsloth would have us lower ourselves to our enemies level.

Think: the "code of the playground"...."but Timmy did it FIRST, Mom!"

Thankfully, those sort of immature extremists are far and few between.
_______________________________________________________
Truthsleuth Speaks!
Don't Click This Link, Denise!

Unlike you liberals, I have no desire to be "superior" to any other human being. I actually really do believe we are all created equal.

Beating them at their own game on the other hand is a concept I can relate to. I have no qualms with arranging a meeting between him and Allah once he has killed the innocent and aspires to kill me. I am a free trader who believes in capitalism and competition ... you know... one of those "mean old conservatives".

I'm sure though that if Obama will just talk to them, like Daniel Perl did, he will solve all of the problems and we can move forward in to utopia ... if he can keep his head of course.

Sniffles05 The Plagiarizer in Chief
Sniffles05:Angry and often proven wrong.

I had already determined that you had no desire to be superior to any other human being, even the most depraved terrorist. There was nothing here for you to clear up.

According to some news reports, Clinton wants Obama to be her VP.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

As for the Geneva Conventions, let me tell you ONE THING that this Soldier does know. The Geneva Conventions weren’t written to cover the kind of warfare we are engaged in today. We are facing an enemy that scoffs at the Geneva Conventions and sees our adherence to them as a sign of weakness. I am NOT saying we should abandon them. We must maintain the moral high ground.

It’s time to get off your high horse and offer a solution for the future. Oh sorry, I forgot – YOU HAVE NONE.

The basic questions are these:
1) “How do we adapt the Conventions to account for the kind of warfare we are facing today?”
2) “How do we pre-emptively engage this enemy and maintain the moral high ground?”

(That’s right, I said “pre-emptively engage”. After 9/11, to do otherwise would be IRRESPONSIBLE.)

Instead, you point a finger of blame at the current administration. Anyone can find fault. Point all you want. SO WHAT. You are nothing but a critic. Critics create nothing. It takes imagination to offer solutions. You are so blinded by the present (what is currently written in the Conventions) that you have no vision or plan for the future. You are so obsessed with finding fault with the current administration that you cannot see the forest for the trees. What WILL YOU DO to protect this nation? Nothing, I suspect. You will just sit back, find fault, and pontificate. What a GIANT COP OUT.

Personally, I thank God that George W. Bush was President on September 11. I shudder to think what Al Gore would have done. It would have been either a huge overreaction – or nothing. And both would have been wrong.

And one day in the future when a million innocent Americans die at the hands of terrorists, you will be the first to scream, “Why didn’t they (the Republican administration in office) do more to protect us?” Your cries will fall on deaf ears, Jeff. Because among all of the terrorists that you claim should have POW status, eventually, one real nasty one will get tried and released on a technicality, and then later, will successfully create our worst nightmare. Then the fault will be partially yours. And the blood will be on YOUR hands. But you can take consolation in the fact that you were right about the Geneva Conventions. Dead right.

From the other side of the tracks

This is the administration which ignored, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States.”

Transcript

Six months warning, ignored.

The Geneva Conventions and international law are perfectly adequate to handle terrorist. To imagine that Islamic terrorists are more of a threat to the United States than World War II is remarkable.

What you have now is a situation whereby the Bush administration tried to make it up as they went along and have now reached a point where trials of terrorist are almost impossible and evidence is inadmissible because it was extracted by torture.

Complain all you want, the Supreme Court is making the rulings. Do you object to the Court’s rulings?

------------------
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years. Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me. I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years." John McCain

AGAIN Jeff, all you can do is point your finger and BLAME. You offer NOTHING constructive. Only destructive. Self-destructive of America.

Since you're into the BLAME GAME try out these facts.

How about the 8 YEARS PRIOR to that??
The main reason we got attacked on 9/11 lies at the feet of Bill Clinton. His (wag the dog) foreign policy debacles are the reason all Americans have a target on their collective foreheads. Surrender in Somalia, Monica Lewinsky scandal motivated bombings (to distract media attention); remember the Pharmaceutical factory we bombed in Sudan that Clinto never apologized for? "Gee, we had bad intelligence" was the excuse. And our attempts to negotiate with N Korea included sending over a basketball signed by Michael Jordan. Now there's a brilliant strategy.

Bill Clinton was MISSING IN ACTION when it came to foreign policy because he was too busy hob-nobbing with Hollywood and selling the Lincoln bedroom.

So what if Bush tried to make it up as we went along. At least he did SOMETHING. At least he recognized that the OLD METHODS would not work against this NEW THREAT. At least he tried something. Was it perfect? NO. It never is.

You are dead wrong when you say that the "The Geneva Conventions and international law are perfectly adequate to handle terrorist."

And herein you show your true colors. You want this nation to be subjugated by international law?? Go bow down and worship to the UN if you want. As Shakespeare said, " . . . There madness lies"

From the other side of the tracks

Hey, read Article VI of the Constitution. It is me supporting the Constitution of the United States and having my opinions upheld by the Supreme Court. It is your advocacy of violating international treaties, supporting torture and attempting to establish kangaroo courts that the Supreme Court is ruling against time after time. I’m perfectly comfortable with that.

------------------
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years. Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me. I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years." John McCain

In you last post, you attempt to ascribe to me extreme positions that I have never espoused. Your bandolier is empty, so you claim I support violating treaties, torture and kangaroo courts. What a LIE!!! Your weak minded effort to make me look like an extremist is a desperate attempt to win the argument.

And WOW, YOUR opinions have been upheld by the Supreme Court! Excuse me while I bow down and PUKE all over your shoes. Go ahead, wrap yourself in the Constitution you HIGH and MIGHTY zealot. Problem is, at the end of the day, it does not win the argument. You are too BLIND to see that we must change and adapt to confront this new threat. You are so deperate to have something you can point at to dog the current administration that you have become a caricature of yourself. Completely out of touch with reality.

And yet again, you have provided no solutions. I am NOT perfectly comfortable with that. It appears YOU are. And that is a sad day for the future of America.

From the other side of the tracks

"And WOW, YOUR opinions have been upheld by the Supreme Court! Excuse me while I bow down and PUKE all over your shoes. Go ahead, wrap yourself in the Constitution you HIGH and MIGHTY zealot. Problem is, at the end of the day, it does not win the argument."

Uh... actually trax, in the United States being upheld by the Supreme Court does win the argument. Puke on the Court if you want, believe that people who agree with the Constitution are zealots, it's a free country.

------------------
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years. Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me. I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years." John McCain

You lost the argument. Because you are focused on bashing the Bushies, instead of solving the problem. You haven't offered a single cogent solution to the dilemma presented by OST.

If the Supreme Court ruling was different, you would be disavowing it.

We must find a way to deal with this new kind of war where the enemy hides behind a civilian cloak of anonymity. We cannot afford to establish a precedent that allows the terrorists the same rights as POWs.

Tell you what, since you are such an ardent supporter of terrorists rights, when the conflict is over, how about I give your business card to all of the Guantanamo detainees? I'm sure they'd like to look you up . . .

The Bard of Peachtree City

If you have read what I wrote and can still try to characterize my position as: "We cannot afford to establish a precedent that allows the terrorists the same rights as POWs" then I am giving up with you. My limited ability to explain what has been and is now current US and international law is obviously inadequate. The precedent has long been set and the law is the law like it or not.

However, I wish to assure you that I am and will be satisfied with whatever the Supreme Court rules. I have stated that many times before and I don't believe that you will ever be able to find anything I have written which would even imply otherwise.

------------------
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years. Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me. I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years." John McCain

2) “How do we pre-emptively engage this enemy and maintain the moral high ground?”

Well, maybe we can take lessons from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld on pre-emptive strikes against 'would-be' enemies and 'evil-doers.'

Yes, this has worked out SO well!

I'm curious, since you mentioned you are a soldier, how would YOU go about 'pre-emptively' engaging our enemies? I would honestly like to hear it from a soldiers viewpoint.

------------------------
HOW MUCH WE'VE SPENT ON THE IRAQ WAR SO FAR

Sounds like a lot of money, until you know the real facts.

Currently, America spends between 3 and 4 percent of GDP on defense spending. Less than 1 percent of that is spent on Iraq.

By comparison, during WWII, our nation spent 38% of GDP on the war effort. 38%.

So get your facts straight before you try to sensationalize the monetary effort this nation is putting forth toward facing the greatest threat to our way of life in this millenium. It is miniscule by comparison.

And the death toll on 9/11 exceeded Pearl Harbor's.

Still think we are spending too much?

From the other side of the tracks

"Still think we are spending too much?"

Yes, way too much. And we aren't through yet.

"The Bush administration has tried its best to conceal the horrendous costs of the war. It has bypassed the normal budgetary process, financing the war almost entirely through “emergency” appropriations that get far less scrutiny."

“Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.”

THE $2 TRILLION NIGHTMARE

------------------------
HOW MUCH WE'VE SPENT ON THE IRAQ WAR SO FAR