When prisoners of war aren't even close. (Was: RE: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention)

[Black Unicorn]

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 at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On
> Behalf Of measl at mfn.org
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:03 PM
> To: cypherpunks at 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?