Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
US violates the Geneva Convention (english) by Idiot/Savant 3:35am Sun Jan 13 '02 (Modified on 4:34am Sun Jan 13 '02) Some of the ways in which the US is violating the Geneva Convention at Guantanamo. 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, and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating it in several ways. Interrogation: the US has publicly stated they will interrogate the prisoners; however this is specificly forbidden by the convention. No prisoner is bound to give anything more than the infamnous "name, rank and serial number" (or equivalent); coercion to gain more information is expressly forbidden "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (Article 17) Housing: the US are housing the POWs in wire-mesh cages. Unless US troops are quartered in similar conditions, this is a violation: "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health. The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets. " (Article 25). Trial and punishment: POWs are considered to be subject to the same laws and regulations as soldiers of the detaining power; they may be tried only by military courts (except where jurisdiction would normally belong to civil courts), and sentances must be the same as for soldiers of the detaining power commiting similar acts. POWs tried for acts commited prior to capture retain the benefits of the Convention even if convicted. Prisoners must be tried according to the same standards as soldiers of the detaining power, must be granted access to adequete and independent counsel of their own choosing, and may not be tried in courts which do not offer "essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized". (Articles 82 - 107) In other words, Bush's kangaroo military tribunals are out. There's other questions relating to provision of clothing, not holding POWs in confinement and the conditions under which they were transferred to Cuba (shackled, chained to their seats for the whole flight, and (according to the news) unable to move even to relieve themselves), but I'm sticking to things which can be clearly proved rather than venturing into murky territory. If US prisoners were treated in this manner, the US would be kicking and screaming. Is this another case of US moral exceptionalism? Idiot/Savant add your own comments Good stuff (english) by anon 4:02am Sun Jan 13 '02 I'm pleased to see any of this type of stuff appear on Indymedia. If we are thinking, then maybe others will start to think also (I'm an optimist occasionally). My familiarity is with the Hague Convention that preceded the Geneva Conventions. What I see here is 'the worst' of the breaches in the POW rules that I studied from the WWI era. The US hasn't the right to pick and chose which things it obeys - but where the heck are the people with the clout to stop them? I am convinced that the UN is a waste of space. I totally agree that the US would be screaming if someone did something like this to US troops. In WWI, stuff like the US was largely 'controlled' (a.k.a. carefully hidden) out of fear of what 'the enemy' would do to the captor country's troops if 'the enemy' caught any. Thus the US is seemingly setting up its own troops for horrible deaths. Of course, maybe there is truth to the many hundreds of US deaths that have been claimed by the Taliban and supposedly hidden by US authorities???????? WE have the clout to stop them (english) by proffr1@etc 4:27am Sun Jan 13 '02 Its all laid out in assassination politics,like arnie Swarvztnegger reading from a cue card.(especially p 10) Soft drill a few safely and the last empire will crumble into dust.Crypto anarchy is here folks.We ARE ALL FREE. When cryptography is outlawed V? PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t* 5+++ X R* tv b+ DI+ D++ G++>+++ e>++ h-- r++ y+ Spread the great news! Extraordinary Combatants (english) by Archimedes 4:34am Sun Jan 13 '02 The Bush Administration is taking the position that the detainees transported to Cuba are not prisoners of war, but extralegal combatants, i.e., they are not members of the duly constituted military force of a recognized government. With regard to the al Qaeda forces, this is correct; they should be handled as criminal defendants, not as captured soldiers. A propos of the Taliban forces, however, this is puzzling since the US formerly and recently recognized and interacted with the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. One is also left to wonder why, if none of the combatants are state representatives, the US feels justified invading and devastating a sovreign nation to pursue criminal suspects. There seems to be some confused thinking amongst our best and brightest on these points.
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,
Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning; it 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.
and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating it 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? Every army of every signatory power has interrogators trained and ready to process prisoners of war. Every infantry leader is trained to rapidly elicit information of immediate tactical value from the enemy soldiers whom he captures.
No prisoner is bound to give anything more than the infamnous "name, rank and serial number" (or equivalent); coercion to gain more information is expressly forbidden "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (Article 17)
Right. Coercion and torture forbidden. Asking questions is not. Use of trickery is not. Many other means of obtaining information are not.
Housing: the US are housing the POWs in wire-mesh cages. Unless US troops are quartered in similar conditions, this is a violation: "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area.
The Convention certainly did not envision eliminating security precautions against the escape of prisoners!
Trial and punishment: POWs are considered to be subject to the same laws and regulations as soldiers of the detaining power; they may be tried only by military courts (except where jurisdiction would normally belong to civil courts), and sentances must be the same as for soldiers of the detaining power commiting similar acts. POWs tried for acts commited prior to capture retain the benefits of the Convention even if convicted.
I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war!
If US prisoners were treated in this manner, the US would be kicking and screaming. Is this another case of US moral exceptionalism?
If the US prisoners in question had engineered, or were suspected of having engineered, the deaths of thousands of innocent people, I suspect that even LESS sympathy or consideration would be shown them. They certainly would not get any from me. Marc de Piolenc
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,
Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning;
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.
it 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. As for AQ being a "criminal association": how do you arrive at this? I suspect you get there by considering their acts to be outside of accepted behaviour (of any "lawful" society). If so, then I agree that they qualify as a "criminal association", however, this definition also qualifies the USA as a criminal association. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating it 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?
He hallicinates a lot when he runs out of Thorazine.
Trial and punishment: POWs are considered to be subject to the same laws and regulations as soldiers of the detaining power; they may be tried only by military courts (except where jurisdiction would normally belong to civil courts), and sentances must be the same as for soldiers of the detaining power commiting similar acts. POWs tried for acts commited prior to capture retain the benefits of the Convention even if convicted.
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). 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?
If US prisoners were treated in this manner, the US would be kicking and screaming. Is this another case of US moral exceptionalism?
I just *hate* to agree with mattd, but he's right on target here.
If the US prisoners in question had engineered, or were suspected of having engineered, the deaths of thousands of innocent people,
You can't *possibly* be this naive.
I suspect that even LESS sympathy or consideration would be shown them. They certainly would not get any from me.
Talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?
Marc de Piolenc
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Despite what has been promoted by the media (and orchestrated leaks to it by the US and UK): 1. No definitive link between Al Qweda and the 911 attackers/Moussaoui has been proven; only assertions have been to date. 2. Nor any proven link of the attackers to the Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan with whom the US and other governments had been engaging in regular diplomatic relations. 3. Most if not all prisoners of war held by the US served under the Taliban, not Al Qaeda. 4. There is more evidence for punishing the US military and homeland for directly training and arming the Murrah Building attackers and instigating the attack than there is for punishing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. 5. Defining enemies of the US is and has been a role of US media for longer than we want to believe due to our having no access to secret information upon which national defense policy is made until, at best, long after the US has deliberately misled its poplulace with biased and misinforming news reports, leaks and official statements. 6. The US is not alone in keeping its citizenry and some of its governing officials misinformed, allegedly in the national interest. 7. The US lacks a mechanism such as the British Parliament to question its ruling Taliban; the media claims this role for itself but does not do what it is specially privileged to do, particularly in times of war and variations on alleged national emergencies, primarily because much of the media is organized to distribute simple-minded entertainment matters based on a flood of custom-made delivery mechanisms -- press releases, conferences, salons, din-dins, retreats, pillow talk, temporary service in minor roles in government and study groups. 8. As we see here virtually all the time, debate never exceeds what the debaters have read, seen and heard of media output, except in the rare cases of original research, and even then, until the research is valorized by media coverage nobody pays attention to it. 9. There were times early on when the list offered original material on a fairly regular basis, from subscribers or from anonymous contributors; occasionally that still occurs, but mostly we enjoy eating and arguing about fake food. 10. These points are well-worn and have no original content; this is known as the American Way in the US, in Afghanistan the Taliban, elsewhere called what fundamentalism sells bibles and advertising.
-- On 14 Jan 2002, at 8:06, John Young wrote:
Despite what has been promoted by the media (and orchestrated leaks to it by the US and UK):
1. No definitive link between Al Qweda and the 911 attackers/Moussaoui has been proven; only assertions have been to date.
We have the tape, in which Bin Laden says that he, and some cleric in Saudi Arabia, knew the plan and the targets before the hijackers did. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG d/O9rkL0/HezMCZWfuj8F6+eoLzN6zOAfu6362JL 4+z9cVraLwspghJ+NS+uNe8F+g01oBLHFSD2mkmCL
At 09:02 PM 01/16/2002 -0800, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
-- On 14 Jan 2002, at 8:06, John Young wrote:
Despite what has been promoted by the media (and orchestrated leaks to it by the US and UK):
1. No definitive link between Al Qweda and the 911 attackers/Moussaoui has been proven; only assertions have been to date.
We have the tape, in which Bin Laden says that he, and some cleric in Saudi Arabia, knew the plan and the targets before the hijackers did.
Also, wasn't bin Laden involved in the previous attempt to blow up the world trade center, which had the FBI informant helping them?
measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
mattd wrote:
Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning;
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.
Okay - it DEFINITELY isn't a military force for Geneva purposes. How's that? You're welcome to your definition, but it won't wash here.
it 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.
We definitely differ here, and I disrespectfully submit that your line of reasoning is that of a terrorist: who is not for me is against me. By that "logic" everyone is fair game. And of course that's the purpose of the doctrine: to justify murder.
As for AQ being a "criminal association": how do you arrive at this? I suspect you get there by considering their acts to be outside of accepted behaviour (of any "lawful" society).
My reasoning is simpler and less legalistic than that which you impute top me. Murder is a crime. These guys conspired to commit murder, and did so. They are criminals, and associated in crime; therefore they are a criminal association.
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category. Marc de Piolenc
On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category.
How about Criminal Conduct meaning "Actions violate the laws". The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so. -- "Those without creative minds and agile fingers are of course welcome to hurry up with my fries. And they'll probably use a GUI to take my order, too." - Tom Christiansen
Petro wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category.
How about Criminal Conduct meaning "Actions violate the laws".
The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so.
Okay, let's try a concrete example: A commits the offense of blocking another's driveway with his automobile. B commits murder. Is A in the same category as B? If yes, then I have to concede the argument, because as you say the US government is not Simon-pure. I do, however, make a distinction. Marc de Piolenc
On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 07:53 PM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Petro wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category.
How about Criminal Conduct meaning "Actions violate the laws".
The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so.
Okay, let's try a concrete example: A commits the offense of blocking another's driveway with his automobile. B commits murder.
Is A in the same category as B? If yes, then I have to concede the argument, because as you say the US government is not Simon-pure. I do, however, make a distinction.
If A is actually a crime (instead of an "infraction"), then yes, both are in the set called "criminal". It is a large set and includes most of the people in this country. What is the difference between murdering 50 people and murdering 3000? -- Crypto is about a helluva lot more than just PGP and RSA...it's about building the I-beams and sheetrock that will allow robust structures to be built, it's about the railroad lines and power lines that will connect the structures, and it's about creating Galt's Gulch in cyberspace, where it belongs.--Tim May
This is not concrete, it is flawed. You(!) first have to demonstrate that people and nations operate on the same rules and laws. They don't... <PLONK> Further, your 'distinction' actually begs the question in that your example was built to lead to your conclusion. <PLONK> Further, you need to demonstrate that A's ONLY(!!!) offense is blocking the driveway AND that that act did not itself perpetuate another event which COULD lead to an unintentional death or murder. Why was A blocking the driveway again?... <PLONK> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Okay, let's try a concrete example:
A commits the offense of blocking another's driveway with his automobile.
B commits murder.
Is A in the same category as B? If yes, then I have to concede the argument, because as you say the US government is not Simon-pure. I do, however, make a distinction.
-- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:13:41AM +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war!
This is the heart of the matter. If the detainees are determined to be POWs, that triggers a certain level of legal protection. So far, it seems as though the U.S. is saying they are not but we'll extend them some of the benefits because we're nice guys. -Declan
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:13:41AM +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war!
This is the heart of the matter. If the detainees are determined to be POWs, that triggers a certain level of legal protection. So far, it seems as though the U.S. is saying they are not but we'll extend them some of the benefits because we're nice guys.
The current administration keeps waffling on if this is a war or not. When it suits their purposes (getting money out of congress, censoring the press, and trampling on the constitution and bill of rights) it is a War. When it does not suit their purposes (like how they treat prisoners), it is not a War. Speaking of "Missing In Action"... Anyone know what Cheany is up to? If life imitates the movies, we are either seeing a remake of "Dave" or "Weekend At Bernies". -- alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:13:41AM +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war!
This is the heart of the matter. If the detainees are determined to be POWs, that triggers a certain level of legal protection. So far, it seems as though the U.S. is saying they are not but we'll extend them some of the benefits because we're nice guys.
Conventionally, in order to be a prisoner of war you have to be a soldier. To be considered a soldier, you have to be in uniform and you have to be part of an organized military force, meaning that you have a rank and, unless you are the commander in chief, you have a superior to report to. This is an essential requirement, because PoWs are supposed to be handled through their own chain of command. In the second world war, people out of uniform but carrying guns were often just shot out of hand. If taken prisoner, they weren't treated as prisoners of war but as spies, bandits, or terrorists. Some of us remember the chief of police in Saigon dealing out summary justice during the Tet offensive on this basis: the VC wasn't in uniform, so he just shot him, right in front of all of those cameramen. Those fighting on behalf of the Taleban appear to be an unorganized militia - no uniforms, no ranks, no saluting, just guns and lots of spirit. You can't make them PoWs because they don't recognize any chain of command. -- Jim Dixon jdd@dixons.org tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jim Dixon wrote:
Conventionally, in order to be a prisoner of war you have to be a soldier. To be considered a soldier, you have to be in uniform and you have to be part of an organized military force, meaning that you have a rank and, unless you are the commander in chief, you have a superior to report to. This is an essential requirement, because PoWs are supposed to be handled through their own chain of command.
In addition, in order to be covered by the parts of the Geneva Convention dealing with POWs, you have to be soldiering for a signatory state. Afghanistan signed the Covention a few decades ago but I don't know if the Taliban would be covered.
In the second world war, people out of uniform but carrying guns were often just shot out of hand. If taken prisoner, they weren't treated as prisoners of war but as spies, bandits, or terrorists. Some of us remember the chief of police in Saigon dealing out summary justice during the Tet offensive on this basis: the VC wasn't in uniform, so he just shot him, right in front of all of those cameramen.
Those fighting on behalf of the Taleban appear to be an unorganized militia - no uniforms, no ranks, no saluting, just guns and lots of spirit. You can't make them PoWs because they don't recognize any chain of command.
The reverse of this BTW is that civilians defending their homes against "unlawful combatants" are in the best position. They aren't bound by the Geneva Convention either and can use "expanding rifle ammo" (dum-dums) and other goodies. If civilians are defending against irregulars (say Al Quida troops on the streets of New York) they don't have to accept surrender offers and can be pretty much as nasty as they want. DCF ---- War was invented to restore to men in agrigultural societies the legitimate excuse to get away from home that hunting had provided in hunter-gatherer societies.
On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 11:49 AM, Duncan Frissell wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jim Dixon wrote:
Conventionally, in order to be a prisoner of war you have to be a soldier. To be considered a soldier, you have to be in uniform and you have to be part of an organized military force, meaning that you have a rank and, unless you are the commander in chief, you have a superior to report to. This is an essential requirement, because PoWs are supposed to be handled through their own chain of command.
In addition, in order to be covered by the parts of the Geneva Convention dealing with POWs, you have to be soldiering for a signatory state. Afghanistan signed the Covention a few decades ago but I don't know if the Taliban would be covered.
Why would it not? It was the regime controlling Afghanistan. Sure, it was not the regime that signed the Geneva Accords of Whichever Type, but neither is the Bush Jr. Administration the same as the Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Truman Administrations. Nor is the Putin Administration the same as whatever band of brigands ran Russia 50 years ago. And so on. The Taliban Regime was as much in the line of succession as any of hundreds of other regimes. That the U.S. is choosing to ignore the Geneva Accords of Whichever Type is, hopefully, one more nail in their coffin. --Tim May
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Tim May wrote:
Why would it not? It was the regime controlling Afghanistan. Sure, it was not the regime that signed the Geneva Accords of Whichever Type, but neither is the Bush Jr. Administration the same as the Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Truman Administrations.
Nor is the Putin Administration the same as whatever band of brigands ran Russia 50 years ago. And so on.
The Taliban Regime was as much in the line of succession as any of hundreds of other regimes.
That the U.S. is choosing to ignore the Geneva Accords of Whichever Type is, hopefully, one more nail in their coffin.
I was of course speaking of statements written in the "Law of Nations" programming language. If you use a different programming language, the code won't run. Like most of our legal discussions here, morality is not at issue just what opinions courts have expressed on various matters. The US was, in fact, convicted of war crimes in '86 in a trial at the International Court of Justice for air-sown mines in Nicaragua but nothing came of it. US treatment of those who formally declared war on it a half-dozen times since 1996 and initiated hostilities is not likely to constitute that entity's worst human rights violations. Perhaps not a rights violation at all in strict libertarian terms. Libertarian penal theory has not been well developed. Naturally we don't favor sticking prisoners in utopian socialist colonies (prisons). Slavery to the victim or family is possible but difficult. "The Market for Liberty" suggested that crime would be so rare that shrinks would rent the few prisoners as study subjects but I doubt that's very realistic. There's always the payment of wergeld but the poor often can't pay. Since torture or execution are not strictly prohibited by the non-aggression axiom in the case of those who have agressed, there are likely to be differences among libertarians on the treatment of prisoners. Still an unresolved problem. DCF ---- "Ideally, the death penalty should be administered on the spot at the hands of the intended victim(s). (The UA 93 solution to the 11 September attacks.)
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jim Dixon wrote:
In the second world war, people out of uniform but carrying guns were often just shot out of hand.
Not generaly by the allies they weren't.
If taken prisoner, they weren't treated as prisoners of war but as spies, bandits, or terrorists.
Again, not applicable in general to the Allies.
Some of us remember the chief of police in Saigon dealing out summary justice during the Tet offensive on this basis: the VC wasn't in uniform, so he just shot him, right in front of all of those cameramen.
And look at what it cost him...this is PERFECT example of why NOT to treat these folks as anything other than strict POW's.
Those fighting on behalf of the Taleban appear to be an unorganized militia - no uniforms, no ranks, no saluting, just guns and lots of spirit. You can't make them PoWs because they don't recognize any chain of command.
Actually you can. Simply because they don't run their army according to your rules doesn't exclude you from civilized behaviour. Thinking like this is exactly what has those folks pissed off to begin with. "Freedom for me, not for thee" -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (15)
-
Alan Olsen -
Bill Stewart -
Black Unicorn -
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
F. Marc de Piolenc -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Jim Dixon -
John Young -
mattd -
measl＠mfn.org -
Petro -
Tim May