Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention

F. Marc de Piolenc piolenc at mozcom.com
Sun Jan 13 09:13:41 PST 2002


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





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list