Rummy on Gitmo: Geneva Conventions do not apply

Senators call images of abuse ‘disgusting’
Rumsfeld denies techniques violate international rules for POWs

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/

“I expected that these pictures would be very hard on the stomach lining, and it was significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “Take the worse case and multiply it several times over.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the images “appalling,” saying they “go beyond” what much of the world has already seen in photos broadcast and published earlier this month."

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the global war on terror are held.

He said the distinction was that the international rules governed wars between countries but not those involving groups such as al-Qaida, the terrorist network blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. “Terrorists don’t comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians," Rumsfeld said."

all prisoners are covered by the Geneva convention if the country capturing them is a signatory.

it is my understanding that the Geneva Convention applies to "enemy combatants" only and thus Rumsfeld's rather smarmy sidestep of the rule of law and morality.

...is totally and completely made up out of thin air by the Bush administration.

It doesn't matter whether they are represented by a government, nor does it matter whether they are wearing uniforms.

The Geneva Convention only has 2 categories: Combantant and non-combatant.

Here's a link about this:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm

Here's one excerpt from it:

Argument: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war against terrorism.

HRW Response: The U.S. government could have pursued terrorist suspects by traditional law enforcement means, in which case the Geneva Conventions indeed would not apply. But since the U.S. government engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan - by bombing and undertaking other military operations - the Geneva Conventions clearly do apply to that conflict. By their terms, the Geneva Conventions 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." Both the United States and Afghanistan are High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions.

but AlQaeda is certainly not a signator and thus Rummy makes his case...I add that I do not agree with his position of course.

regardless of Al Qaeda. To define a detainee as a "terrorist" does not absolve the US of its' signatory responsibilities.

related to detainees and civilians and the US is in direct contravention of the the Geneva Conventions in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

(Edited to add link to section on civilians, etc.)

becomes a prisoner or detainee or an Innocent person within the zone of control of a signatories of the treaty.

Of course, given the political shitstorm he's stoking, that's OK by me.

"“Terrorists don’t comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians," Rumsfeld said."

You DO NOT SINK TO THEIR LEVEL

The Geneva Convention is there for that reason.

countries that do must follow them with prisoners from those countries. The failure of others to follow the Convention does not excuse one's own failure to do so. And POWs don't usually have to be 'convicted' of being POWs.

On the other hand, the term 'terrorist' suggests that some criteria are being used to definitely classify a person as such. At best, those at Gitmo are 'alleged terrorists.' 'Innocent until proven guilty' is not in the Neocon phrasebook. Neither, apparently, is 'human being.' Holding someone indefinitely on suspicion is a crime against humanity; torturing that person is even more so. Claiming the person to not be a POW doesn't get Rummy off the hook; at best it redefines the crime from war crime to crime against humanity.

Is their irrefutable evidence that 100% of the detainees "killed innocent women and children?" Is there evidence that they are card-carrying terrorists? Are there any "suspects" in the group?

Do they reserve the snarling attack dogs and the "laugh and point at the penis" treatment for the true, guilty, caught-in-the-act terrorists, or have they shoved broomsticks up the backside of a few "suspects" as well?

Rummy failed to mention that. Must have been an oversight.



Edited for spelling.

* is using torture on American Citizens in Gitmo. How many? We're not allowed to know. Which? We're not allowed to know. Why? We're not allowed to know.

Allow the Red Cross into Gitmo NOW.

I can only imagine what goes on in Gitmo, if the Iraq atrocities happened under Geneva Conventions.