Impeach President Bush Now

[solarbird]

Impeach

President

Bush

Now

The part that really says "petulant jackass who doesn't actually give a rat's ass about anything other than power" is the part where he threatens to stop all CIA interrogations of suspects if he doesn't get to torture people. And the "clarity" bullshit has to stop. There's been 50 years of work on understanding, very clearly, what does and does not violate the Geneva conventions on this issue. It's very clear now. The idea that this legalisation of torture effort is some sort of attempt to "clarify" anything is a giant lie. Do not let that abuse of language, history, and American principles stand. It was torture when the Soviets did it; it was torture when the Hussein regime did it; it's torture if we do it. Period.

Comments

[avram]

The International Committee of the Red Cross says otherwise: "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."

[banner.livejournal.com]

It does not matter what the International Red Cross says. They are not the police. What matters is what treaties the US has signed and agreed to. The rules clearly state that if one side does not abide by the rules, the other is not bound to abide by them. Furthermore the Conventions are agreements between states, and only states. If you belong to a non-state organization you are not covered by them at all.

[avram]

It does not matter what the International Red Cross says. They are not the police.

The ICRC is the organization created under the Geneva Conventions for the purpose of monitoring compliance of warring parties with the Geneva Conventions. So as far as Geneva Conventions compliance is concerned, yes, they are the police.

If you belong to a non-state organization you are not covered by them at all.

Wrong yet again! Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention extends POW protection to (4.1.3) “Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power” as well as (4.1.4) “Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof” and (4.1.6) “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units”.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Wow, I have never seen a greater lack of comprehension in my life. It's really impressive how you're completely bending or misreading the words and trying to make them fit someplace they don't even come close to. Let me guess, you're a lawyer or a politician, right? Because everything you said there is really a lot of bull and makes no logical sense at all.

Regular armed forces wear uniforms, so that one is out. Persons who accompany the armed forces do not engage in combat, they also must have armed forces i.e. a regular army, to accompany; so that one is out too. As for number 3, they have had time to organize, so that one doesn't apply, obviously. Also that rule does not apply to attacks against an occupying force.

And again, you are NOT bound by ANY articles of the Geneva convention if the enemy does not abide by it. What part of that don't you understand? That rule has been in there since day one to try and force both sides to abide, because otherwise, the side that does not abide has an advantage over the other.

[avram]

Wait, we're discussing what is essentially a legal matter, and you're saying that if I was a lawyer I'd be a less reliable source than a layman? Jeez, who do you go to when you need legal advice?

[solarbird]

Harlan Ellison, of course. Who else?

[avram]

He's bugfucktastic!

[banner.livejournal.com]

It's not a legal matter. It's a treaty matter. And possibly a UCMJ matter. People outside of our country are not covered under US laws. Neither are people who are at war with us. This is not a legal matter.

[avram]

Hold on. While the Bush administration does say that that al Qaeda fighters aren't covered at all under the Conventions, more than four years ago, the White House declared that Taliban fighters among the Afghan war detainees are covered by the Geneva Conventions. And there are Taliban operatives at Gitmo.

[banner.livejournal.com]

The Taliban members who wore uniforms and followed the rules of war are covered by the Conventions. Those that did not wear uniforms or follow the rules of war are not covered.

However, that has no bearing on their being at gitmo. They're prisoners of war, and until something can be decided on what to do with them (I personally think they should just hold military tribunals and punish the guilty and release the innocent), that is wear they are going to stay.

[avram]

That's pretty impressive. Your very first comment, starting off this whole argument, began "You do realize that the Geneva convention does not apply to anyone in Gitmo, right?".

Now you're admitting that you were wrong, but stating your admission as if it were a correction of the very people who've been pointing out that your were wrong to begin with. You're just shameless.

[banner.livejournal.com]

You are saying that there are people in Gitmo who were uniformed members of the Taliban, who fought following the rules of war. Or at least implied that. If those people are there, then yes the conventions apply to them. Personally I do not believe that any of the people there fit into that classification. If the President decides to extend convention rights to people who do not deserve it, well that's his perogative.

So if you can show me evidence that there are people who deserve convention protections there, I'll agree that they deserve it and admit I was wrong on saying that everyone in Gitmo doesn't deserve those protections. And that's deserve it as per the treaty, not what other people or organizations claim. But by and large I think it's a safe bet that the vast majority of people in Gitmo (over 90 percent) do not fall under the convention at all.

[avram]

First, I'm not syaing it, I telling you that the Bush administration said it. And not just "some" -- in general, Taliban fighters qualify as POWs under the 3rd Convention.

Furthermore, the Geneva Convetions explicitly say that detainees are to be considered POWs until proven otherwise, not that you have to prove that they deserve it to consider them POWs.