The Geneva conventions and the POWs at Guantanimo Bay

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]
[quote=Geneva Convetions]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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.[/quote]

To read more click on this hyperlink: [url]http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm[/url]

The above is an excerpt from the Geneva conventions which have been in place since the 21 of October 1950.

However BUsh and his people have declared that these conditions can not be applied to the POWs being held at Guantanimo Bay since 2002 because they 'represent no nation or formally organized military organization.'

That said these POWs are detained indefinately without the hope of a trial by the military or even a civilian court judge to find out if they are or are not guilty of plotting against the United States and its interests.

Also, with these POWs being denied protection under the Geneva Conventions the guards are allowed to tourture them to obtain information, something which is forbidden under the Geneva Convetions.

My question is do you think it's right for a country which prides itself on the concept of innocent until provent guilty and Justice and equality for all to consider withholding international laws?

Furthermore, do you think that it's even possible for one person or one country to skirt around international law to fit its own purposes? Then turn around and be alarmed to find out cry against its administration?

In my opinion Bush is asking for trouble by attempting to re-work the Geneva Conventions to suit his own purposes. Not only for himself and the possibility of his reelection. But for our men and women over seas.[/color]

[Harry]

Well the Supreme Court just found in favor of your statement.

Also, don't take the Geneva Convention as the word of god. There's quite a few things in there that everyone breaks.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Harry]Well the Supreme Court just found in favor of your statement.

Also, don't take the Geneva Convention as the word of god. There's quite a few things in there that everyone breaks.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Actually the supreme court descsion was that the detainies would be allowed to seek justice under the United States Judicial system, not international law. They determined that a person cannot be held indefinately without a trial.

As for holding the Geneva Conventions as the word of God (or whomever) the way I see it is they're basically guidelines. But You can't just go along making up your own rules because someone else keeps breaking them or you don't like how the rules are set up.

That's what I felt Bush was doing with Guantanimo and what he may also be tryingto do in Afghanistan.[/color]

[Harry]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Actually the supreme court descsion was that the detainies would be allowed to seek justice under the United States Judicial system, not international law. They determined that a person cannot be held indefinately without a trial.
[/color][/QUOTE]
So why does it just have to be international law exactly? Does it matter if they're freed through US law instead of International?

[Yumi]

[COLOR=Indigo][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]It's not actually under the judical system but under military tribunal with 5 military officals as the panel. Although there the death penaltly will not be enforced if they are guilty it does not say what will happen to the detainees, will they be taken to a high security prison or kept at camp delta where thay are at risk of ill treatment. Also there is the risk of bias the panel are under the control of Bush who is to say that there will be miscarriages of justice and innocent people are voted guilty so the the Bush admin. can save face.

At least an international tribunal will be protected by international law and have a an independent panel present.

Allowing them a trial is the first step but their is still the case of them being able to detain the' POW's' without trial or charge if they were considered 'enemy combatants'. Meaning that potentially innocent people are being detained and may have to wait years for a fair trial due to the amount of people in the prison.

The whole case of guantameno bay as puts a question mark over western ideals and makes the US and those associated with the US look like hypocrites. The US is a super power and should set an example of how to treat other instead of going on some power trip (by US I mean the Bush administration not the general population). [/FONT] [/COLOR]

[Mnemolth]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']They determined that a person cannot be held indefinately without a trial...[/color][/quote]

Hmm... not quite. As I understand it, what the Supreme Court seems to be saying is that the government cannot just designate ANYONE an "enemy combatant", and so hide them from the courts. The person is entitled to rebutt the government declaration of their status. What's the diff? There are major differences. Because this is a time of war, the "normal" rules do not apply. The "very basic" rules still exist, so the person can still challenge his detention, but it's not like he has to have a trial, or his guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or rules of evidence (like hearsay, etc) need to apply. Just as long as the person has a chance to come before an objective third party (ie court or maybe tribunal) and challenge the government's claim that he is an "enemy combatant", that's all that needs to happen. If the courts are more likely to believe the government story than his, then he's screwed.

So this means the President can't tommorrow label John Kerry an "enemy combatant" and lock him up indefinitely, but they can probably lock that arab guy down the street who can't prove with 100% certainty that he isn't part of al Qaeda.

It's a big victory for civil rights, but it ain't a complete victory.