| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Geneva Convention to be Officially Trashed | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 6 2006, 09:33 PM (279 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 6 2006, 09:33 PM Post #1 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I suppose we should not be surprised that Bush intends to officially trash the Geneva Convention. It's par for the course with this Admininstration. Nor should we be surprised that only a few months after signing a law that prohibits torture of prisoners in US custody that Bush intends to ignore it. There once was a time that the US was one of the major forces in the world calling for civilized behavior. Not any more. I just hope no American soldiers are captured somewhere by a country like the US that picks and chooses which part of the Geneva Conventions it wants to abide by. Let us hope the Congress intervenes. Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule The Pentagon's move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition. By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer June 5, 2006 WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards. The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged. For more than a year, the Pentagon has been redrawing its policies on detainees, and intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation, which, along with accompanying directives, represents core instructions to U.S. soldiers worldwide. The process has been beset by debate and controversy, and the decision to omit Geneva protections from a principal directive comes at a time of growing worldwide criticism of U.S. detention practices and the conduct of American forces in Iraq. The directive on interrogation, a senior defense official said, is being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees are treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively. President Bush's critics and supporters have debated whether it is possible to prove a direct link between administration declarations that it will not be bound by Geneva and events such as the abuses at Abu Ghraib or the killings of Iraqi civilians last year in Haditha, allegedly by Marines. But the exclusion of the Geneva provisions may make it more difficult for the administration to portray such incidents as aberrations. And it undercuts contentions that U.S. forces follow the strictest, most broadly accepted standards when fighting wars. "The rest of the world is completely convinced that we are busy torturing people," said Oona A. Hathaway, an expert in international law at Yale Law School. "Whether that is true or not, the fact we keep refusing to provide these protections in our formal directives puts a lot of fuel on the fire." The detainee directive was due to be released in late April along with the Army Field Manual on interrogation. But objections from several senators on other Field Manual issues forced a delay. The senators objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists, as opposed to traditional prisoners of war. The lawmakers say that differing standards of treatment allowed by the Field Manual would violate a broadly supported anti-torture measure advanced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain last year pushed Congress to ban torture and cruel treatment and to establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for treatment of all detainees. Despite administration opposition, the measure passed and became law. For decades, it had been the official policy of the U.S. military to follow the minimum standards for treating all detainees as laid out in the Geneva Convention. But, in 2002, Bush suspended portions of the Geneva Convention for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Bush's order superseded military policy at the time, touching off a wide debate over U.S. obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that intensified after reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Among the directives being rewritten following Bush's 2002 order is one governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense officials wanted the redrawn version of the document known as DoD Directive 2310, to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. That provision — known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 — bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees — whether they are held as unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture. The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees. The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva standard in the directive it planned to issue. The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva. "The JAGs came to the conclusion that this was the best they can get," said one participant familiar with the Defense Department debate who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the protracted controversy. "But it was a massive mistake to have withdrawn from Geneva. By backing away, you weaken the proposition that this is the baseline provision that is binding to all nations." Derek P. Jinks, an assistant professor at the University of Texas School of Law and the author of a forthcoming book on Geneva called "The Rules of War," said the decision to remove the Geneva reference from the directive showed the administration still intended to push the envelope on interrogation. "We are walking the line on the prohibition on cruel treatment," Jinks said. "But are we really in search of the boundary between the cruel and the acceptable?" The military has long applied Article 3 to conflicts — including civil wars — using it as a minimum standard of conduct, even during peacekeeping operations. The old version of the U.S. directive on detainees says the military will "comply with the principles, spirit and intent" of the Geneva Convention. But top Pentagon officials now believe common Article 3 creates an "unintentional sanctuary" that could allow Al Qaeda members to keep information from interrogators. "As much as possible, the foundation is Common Article 3. That is the foundation," the senior official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the new policies had not been made public. "But there are certain things unlawful combatants are not entitled to." Another defense official said that Article 3 prohibitions against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" could be interpreted as banning well-honed interrogation techniques. Many intelligence soldiers consider questioning the manhood of male prisoners to be an effective and humane technique. Suggesting to a suspected insurgent that he is "not man enough" to have set an improvised explosive device sometimes elicits a full description of how they emplaced the bomb, soldiers say. The Pentagon worries that if Article 3 were incorporated in the directive, detainees could use it to argue in U.S. courts that such techniques violate their personal dignity. "Who is to say what is humiliating for Sheikh Abdullah or Sheikh Muhammad?" the second official asked. "If you punch the buttons of a Muslim male, are you at odds with the Geneva Convention?" Military officials also worry that following Article 3 could force them to end the practice of segregating prisoners. The military says that there is nothing inhumane about putting detainees in solitary confinement, and that it allows inmates to be questioned without coordinating their stories with others. Human rights groups have their doubts, saying that isolating people for months at a time leads to mental breakdowns. "Sometimes these things sound benign, but there is a reason they have been prohibited," said Jumana Musa, an advocacy director for Amnesty International. "When you talk about putting people in isolation for eight months, 14 months, it leads to mental degradation." Jinks, of the University of Texas, contends that Article 3 does not prohibit some of the things the military says it wants to do. "If the practice is humane, there is nothing to worry about," he said. Defense officials said the State Department and other agencies had argued that adopting Article 3 would put the U.S. government on more solid "moral footing," and make U.S. policies easier to defend abroad. Some State Department officials have told the Pentagon that incorporating Geneva into the new directive would show American allies that the American military is following "common standards" rather than making up its own rules. Department officials declined to comment for this article about the directive or their discussions with the Pentagon. Common Article 3 was originally written to cover civil wars, when one side of the conflict was not a state and therefore could not have signed the Geneva Convention. In his February 2002 order, Bush wrote that he determined that "Common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and Common Article 3 applies only to 'armed conflict not of an international character.' " Some legal scholars say Bush's interpretation is far too narrow. Article 3 was intended to apply to all wars as a sort of minimum set of standards, and that is how Geneva is customarily interpreted, they say. But top administration officials contend that after the Sept. 11 attacks, old customs do not apply, especially to a fight against terrorists or insurgents who never play by the rules. "The overall thinking," said the participant familiar with the defense debate, "is that they need the flexibility to apply cruel techniques if military necessity requires it." |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jun 7 2006, 06:51 AM Post #2 |
|
Finally
|
The Geneva Convention applies to military combatants. Those combatants are defined by several characteristics. Notably: 1) A Uniform 2) Weapons held in plain sight 3) Distancing themselves from civilian populations. Anyone who does not adhere to those conventions may (by the Geneva Conventions) be summarily executed as a spy: on the spot. No trial, no discussions. That's the law. Thought the Zimmermanian Broad Brush® states that Bush is trashing the Geneva conventions, the story refers specifically to article 3 of the convention. Article 3 also states the following: To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; ( c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. I sincerely hope that any nation that abides by the Geneva conventions agrees to the points 1, 2, and 3 listed above. To my understanding, the Taliban, Iraqi terrorists do not. Laws are made to be followed. Disobey them at your own peril. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 7 2006, 06:56 AM Post #3 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
And since the changes are being made in the Army's field manual that is used in all situations -- including dealing with soldiers of other countries in a coinventional war -- Bush is not complying with your wish about Article 3. Like he is doing with all of his surevelliance issues, he is now extending his policies for dealing with terrorists and applying them in much broader situations. As I said, let us hope no American ever gets captured again because Bush is making it very clear that any country can pick and choose whatever parts of the Geneva Convention they wish to abide by or not abide by. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 7 2006, 06:58 AM Post #4 |
|
MAMIL
|
They always could. You think the Viet-Cong complied with the Geneva convention? Were they punished for not doing so? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 7 2006, 07:10 AM Post #5 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Well you're right, John. Of course, the United States should emulate the actions and values of those who function at the bottom of barrell and thus telling the rest of the world they can do the same. It's always best to sink to the lowest level one can identify. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 7 2006, 07:18 AM Post #6 |
|
MAMIL
|
I'm not defending or condemning what Bush is doing - I'd like to read it all a bit more thoroughly first. I was just making that particular point. I happen to believe we should try and comply with the Geneva Convention wherever possible, for the sake of our own humanity as much as anything else. I don't like what's been done with Gitmo and elsewhere, even if it considered necessary. There is a problem in trying to uphold what are considered normal human rights when you're fighting insurgents, terrorists, etc, as the British discovered in N. Ireland. Detention without trial is often necessary, and the combatants cannot be considered POW's, so what do you do? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jun 7 2006, 07:24 AM Post #7 |
|
Finally
|
Without getting into the details of what happened at Haditha, I read two interviews with people who were there. 1) A US Marine. His Humvee was driving past the area, and an Iraqi came out of a building, pointing an AK47 at him. The Marine raised his rifle, and saw that the Iraqi was standing behind several children. The Marine lowered his weapon and took a bullet to the hand. 2) A schoolgirl at Haditha relates that everyone in her house was all excited that day, for there was a bomb planted that was going to kill Americans. So, how do you fight that? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 7 2006, 07:28 AM Post #8 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
And this relates to cherry picking and thus trashing the Geneva convention how? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jun 7 2006, 07:34 AM Post #9 |
|
Finally
|
By addressing my point that your title claims that the "Geneva Convention is to be Officially Trashed," whereas the story is actually about article three of the convention. You took one aspect of the story and using ![]() you applied it to the administrations' "Trashing the Convention." |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jun 7 2006, 07:40 AM Post #10 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
As you said, George, Article Three does not even apply to the persons in question. If anything, the selective application of these articles to these particular combatants is an act of largesse by the Bush Administration since they really don't have to apply any of them. The Army Field Manual was written to address conventional warfare with conventional combatants. Amending it to reflect current circumstances only makes sense. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 7 2006, 08:44 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Hot damn! Now we get to use hollowpoints! Yippee!
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 7 2006, 09:08 AM Post #12 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Not so, George (or jbryan in the succeeding post) The Bush Defense Department intends to modify the Army Field Manual as it deals with any interrogation by ignoring Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. This is a Field Manual that deals with ALL prisoners the Army takes (so it is not limited to just non-state sponsored militias, jbryan). The moment the United States decides that as a matter of policy it is not going to abide by one aspect of the Geneva Convention where it is required to do so, it has claimed the right to ignore its treaty obligations in any other part of the Geneva treaty. You guys are free to slice and dice this all you want, trying to justify Bush's actions here. But once a part of the treaty is set aside as a matter of policy for all military actions, the entire thing can be set aside. Thus, the entire thing is trashed. (And I will not even get into a full discussion of whether Bush is acting illegally under the terms of the anti-torture legislation he signed just a few months ago. But then, he did submit a signing statement that said he'd abide by the law only if he damned well wanted to abide by it and not if he did not chjoose to -- and we all know that the President has the right to modify the terms of legislation simply by issuing a signing statement when he signs it!) |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 11:14 AM Post #13 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Let me ask you something, George. You say that the Geneva Conventions only apply to people who satisfy the following criteria:
Does that mean that the Marines at Haditha are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions? If the stories are true, they do not satisfy the third criterion. They kill-shotted women and children at close range. So, if they fell into the hands of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government would be within its rights to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions to those soldiers? Passing strange, that point of view is. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jun 7 2006, 11:28 AM Post #14 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I don't understand how the Marines at Hadifa could have violated any of the three. if anything they are simply guilty of a war crime. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 04:08 PM Post #15 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Assuming the facts about Haditha that are being reported are true, the Marines did not distance themselves from civilian populations. In fact, again assuming it's all true, they entered houses for the purpose of killing inhabitants who were not armed combatants. Some were small children, shot at close range. George says that, to secure the protections of the Geneva Conventions, soldiers must ... and I guess I should quote it again ... "Distanc[e] themselves from civilian populations". It's clear to me that, if you shoot a four year-old or a three year-old at close range, you aren't distancing yourself from civilian populations. Hence, by George's formulation, the Marines at Haditha are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If found and captured by Iraqi security forces (and wouldn't Groucho have a field day with that), they could be summarily shot, or tortured, because they aren't subject to the Geneva Conventions. Do I have that right, George? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 04:13 PM Post #16 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Oh, and George, let me anticipate one possible response. Please don't come back with all those excuses about what other things might have happened in Haditha. I said, assume that the published reports are true, and that they killed innocent civilians. At close range. Knowingly. Out of revenge. Are they then not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 7 2006, 04:14 PM Post #17 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I would suspect that if a soldier who was known to have committed a war crime was captured, they would either be summarily executed or given a trial and then executed. Probably the latter for the sake of publicity. So the argument has little to do with "Distancing themselves from civilian populations" in order to maintain their rights under the Geneva Convention. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 04:20 PM Post #18 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Is your name George? I thought it was Steve. I was fairly explicit in directing my question to George. He laid out the criteria, I assume he's capable of defending them without your help. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 7 2006, 04:23 PM Post #19 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Don't be such a prat, Quirt. This is a public forum. If you want to have side conversations you are free to PM people. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jun 7 2006, 04:26 PM Post #20 |
|
Finally
|
No, you don't. I used a poor word when I said "distanced." Here's a list of violations of the convention: From: http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/powe...lements-2.shtml Treachery and Perfidy Misuse of the Red Cross Misuse of a Flag of Truce Misuse of enemy uniforms, flags, nation emblems or insignia Misuse of cultural property Pretending to be a civilian Pretending to surrender Pretending to be wounded Pretending to be a United Nations Peacekeeper. and from: http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/041003wedgewood.htm it is perfidy, under the law of war, to pretend to be a civilian and approach allied forces or road checkpoints with safety. If you're not wearing a uniform - you're a civilian. If you shoot at a Marine, you're in violation of the Geneva Conventions. My apologies for a poor choice of words. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 04:37 PM Post #21 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Fair enough, George. That formulation didn't sound like the Geneva Conventions to me, and it certainly didn't make sense in context. We could discuss what "pretending" to be a civilian means, but I'd bet we'd just go round and round about that. IT, the reason I didn't want you to answer is because I am attempting not to respond to you, as discussed in an earlier thread. I didn't want George to take your response as an opportunity not to respond himself. With him, I'm happy to have a discussion. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jun 7 2006, 04:41 PM Post #22 |
|
Finally
|
FWIW, and I can't google it right now - my brain isn't working - a veteran told me that anyone who is among civilians and opens fire on a uniformed soldier is also in violation of the Geneva Accords. THAT's the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 7 2006, 04:45 PM Post #23 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You are obviously failing miserably at that attempt. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 04:46 PM Post #24 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Well, I accomplished my goal. George answered the question that was addressed to George, and I can go back to ignoring you. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 7 2006, 04:48 PM Post #25 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
As you wish, Buttercup. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









Yippee! 
5:00 PM Jul 10