I've been quite amused to watch all the wrangling about the "Geneva Convention" with respect to captives held by the United States in relation to the events of September 11th- both here and in the media. First of all, no one seems to bother specifying which "Geneva Convention" they are referring to. (Several agreements between states would apply. I assume that what is meant is the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. I don't believe any of the captives apply to this definition, or any of the other protections generally referred to as the "Geneva Convention" for several reasons. Let's review some of the assertions made by mattd (who I had ploinked but so many morons here are apt to quote him that there seems to be no escape) and others.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of measl@mfn.org Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:03 PM To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
mattd wrote:
US violates the Geneva Convention
The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which specifies the conditions under which such prisoners are to be treated. The Convention covers irregular forces such as al-Qaeda as well as regular armed forces,
Where do you see this? Let's look at the language of the Convention, instead of the Fox News bullet points, shall we? The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from April to August, 1949. (The "Third Convention") It entered into force for the then signatories on October 21, 1950. First: Article 2 "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." I'm afraid al Qaeda is not a high contracting party. A state of war does not exist in the United States, as congress has no so declared. Well, can we get it in somewhere else? "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance." Since no international body I am aware of recognizes that al Qaeda has any territory to occupy I think that is out. I suppose one might pretend that the United States is "occupying" Afghanistan, but given that the Americans are outnumbered by some thousands to one in ratio I kind of doubt this will fly. "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Specifically, if three parties are "in conflict" and one is not a signatory, the remaining two powers shall abide by the Convention with respect to each other. They shall also abide by it with respect to the non-signatory, provided that non-signatory accepts and applies the provisions of the Convention. Anyone want to who try and tell me that al Qaeda "accepts and applies the provisions of the Convention?"
Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning;
Even if it were al Qaeda members do not fall into the definition of "protected persons" or "prisoners of war" as defined by the Third Convention. It's pretty specific in Article 4: "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." Nope. Al Qaeda is a group of diverse nationalities. They are not members of any particular armed forces. Even if we believe they are an armed force of their own right, they are not a Party to the convention. "2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements..." Oh wait! Wait! "...belonging to a Party to the conflict..." Damn. Nope. Well, maybe if we really stretch things... "...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, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates..." Sure, sure, thank you Osama... "...(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance..." Well, maybe we can fudge this. "...(c) That of carrying arms openly..." Yep, that's easy. "...(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war..." Oops. Well, maybe we can look the other way on this one?
I don't know what your definition of military force is Marc, but any *group* of persons who are armed and engaged in common cause qualify as a military force in my book.
According to dictionary.com, "military" is defined as:
military (ml-tr) adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces: a military bearing; military attire. Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service. Of or relating to war: military operations. Of or relating to land forces.
You may not approve of calling groups you disagree with "military", yet it does not change the facts.
If you're going to make legal arguments, use legal definitions. Finding the definition that applies to the Conventions is left as an exercise for the reader. (Hint: It's not in dictionary.com).
it [Qaedea] is a criminal association whose victims are defenseless and innocent of any involvement (pro or anti) in the cause that the criminal association claims to espouse.
I assume you are referring to the WTC victims here. Sorry, but they were not "innocent". They, as participants in the selection of the rulers of this country, are 100% guilty of the many crimes perpetrated by the United States against other peoples.
Oh boy. Medication time. Medication time. I do so love when people quote what they think is chapter and verse only to totally disregard it when its convenient to the argument to do so. Reader Exercise #2: Are the victims of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks "non-combatants" for the purposes of the convention? Reader Exercise #3: Why doesn't it make any difference? [Noise about the US being a criminal association deleted]
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
See above.
and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating in several ways. Interrogation: the US has publicly stated they will interrogate the prisoners; however this is specificly forbidden by the convention.
Interrogation is certainly NOT prohibited by the Convention. Where are you getting this nonsense?
It most certainly is not.
I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war!
Really? Fuhrer Bush disagrees with you. Our Maximum Leader has "declared" a "war on terrorism" (conveniently leaving out our own terrorist tendencies and acts).
Bush can declare whatever he likes to the press. Only congress can declare war for the purposes of the Convention.
It was this "war" which led to the detention of these prisoners. Sorry Marc, these are indeed prisoners of war. Or maybe you consider that all the military force we just used over in Afghanistan was something other than an act of war? Terrorism maybe?
Now I'm getting sleepy. Blather tires me eventually. Final student exercises: Why don't the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (The Fourth Convention) or the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) apply to the captives either?