The third Geneva Convention has been thrown out the window

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 03:15 AM
Original message

The third Geneva Convention has been thrown out the window

and the US commander in charge of military jails in Iraq, Major General Geoffrey Miller, freely admits it:

"<Miller> has confirmed that a battery of 50-odd special "coercive techniques" can be used against enemy detainees. The general, who previously ran the prison camp at Guant�namo Bay, said his main role was to extract as much intelligence as possible.

Sleep deprivation and stripping naked were techniques that could now only be authorised at general officer level, he said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html

Hmm. Yet the US was a signing party to the third Geneva Convention, where we agreed that:

"Interrogation: While POWs the detaining power may interrogate them, POWs are only required to provide their surname, first names, rank, birth date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. POWs, cannot be punished if they do not but are not required to provide additional any other information. '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.'(Third Geneva, Art. 17)."

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P99_25054

And don't you DARE say the 'enemy detainees' aren't in fact POW's, Geoffrey Miller, you sick, sick animal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RBHam

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 03:21 AM
Response to Original message

1. Do you notice how Miller is being protected...

Who condoned Major General's "policy enhancements"?

Everyone in the chain of command had to have known.

They had to.

Sick fucking bastards...

Of course, they all had to sign off on the modern "operation Northwoods" plan, so NONE of them are fit to wear the uniform they sully with their very existence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no_hypocrisy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 06:43 AM
Response to Original message

2. The * junta did the same thing to our Constitution years ago. Why

Edited on Sat May-08-04 06:46 AM by no_hypocrisy

should the Geneva Convention get a free pass? Selective law enforcement is their shtik.

However, doesn't blatant violation of the Geneva Convention when a country is a signatory subject it to a Nuremburg-style tribunal? This treaty was before the U.S. announced that it was immune to suit in the World Court. Geneva Convention trials would be in the Hague.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #2

5. I agree

and the Geneva agreement is still binding, whether or not we're party to the World Court. One day, when everyone in this country comes to their senses, I hope to see the whole cabal in the Hague.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

markus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 07:17 AM
Response to Original message

3. Legally, they probably aren't

They can probably make a case that the Geneva convention only appliese to the regular armed forces of two contracting parties. Once the Iraqi government collapsed and there were generals or anyone around to surrender, these folks became enemy combatents.

The problem is that these protections needs to be extended to any organized military force (losely defined) in resistance to the use of military force for geopolitical reasons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. 'Two contracting parties'?

What contract has ever been involved in a war?

WADR, the notion that there have to be 'generals around' to have a war going on is nonsense. You can call them insurgents, enemy combatants, ballerinas, whatever you want--but the fact is we are at war. They are prisoners. Hence, they are prisoners of war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

htuttle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. The Geneva Convention has no 'enemy combatant' status

The Bush administration made that up out of whole cloth.

There are only two categories under Geneva: Combatants, and non-combatants. There is no such thing as an 'enemy combatant' with altered status of some kind -- they are just 'combatants' under the Geneva Convention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RUMMYisFROSTED

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-08-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. It's an intentional game of 3 card monty.

Find the accountability card and WIN! *shuffle, shuffle*

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 09th 2024, 05:04 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.