Treatment of prisoners (yep, those ones...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:


Can we have the brits back please?

---

Sure just as soon as we are finished with them, they are all yours...but... Im not sure about this...but I don't think your government wanted them in the first place.

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:


Sure just as soon as we are finished with them, they are all yours...but... Im not sure about this...but I don't think your government wanted them in the first place.

---

But they may be dead then!

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



Actually, since this situation is something that was never envisioned by the creators and signatories of the GC, the arguments both "for" and "against" it are equally weak.

---

Maybe so but events very similar to this situation took place in the XXth Century and the GC still applied. For exemple, NATO would have respected the Geneva Convention when fighting the Soviets who were not the recongnized leader of Eastern European countries. The same goes for various conflicts in the Middle East and Asia.

My point is that the Convention doesn't distinguished between a rightfull and unrightfull governement and fighters. If you are fighting man for your country and you are captured while fighting a war on the international scene, you automatically fall under the protection of the GC. There's no way around it.

So essentially, any Taliban fighter captured IN Afghanistan (even if they are Al-Queda terrorists) should be treated in a way that respects the GC.

If they are not Taliban fighters or if they are captured outside of Afghanistan, the US are not obligated to respect the Convention.

It's not about being mistreated but there are things that you cannot do under the GC... interrogation is one of them.

Thrust me, I don't believe that they deserve to be treated in a way that respects the GC. However, as a Civilized society that prides itself for being governed by laws and justice, we should uphold our own laws!

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


You make an interesting statement, but...

The Clinton administration agreed to the environmental legislation you mention, but the president does not have the power to make treaties. That power resides with Congress and they refused this treaty. Further, when Clinton tried to use the EPA to enforce the treaty rules Congress blocked it again. Don't blame this one on "W", it was a Slick Willie sidestep all the way.

The US did not terminate previous nuclear arms treaties with Russia. In fact, the nuclear arms treaties between the two nations are constantly be expanded. The treaty you refer to is the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missle) Treaty which began in 1972 and was modified through the mid-70s. This treaty stopped the creation of a DEFENSE against nuclear attack, leaving us to rely on the old Mutually Assured Destruction idea. Does anyone still want to believe if we all die it's a good thing? This treaty was not broken by the US and has not been violated. This treaty includes a clause that allows either nation to legally exit the treaty after 6 months notice is given to the other. The US exercised it's option to leave the treaty.

And you are entitled to think what you will about the Geneva Convention's application in the current situation, but because it was never designed to deal with terrorism, the argument "for" it's use isn't any stronger than the argument "against".

Funny that Europeans think America's overlook things not in their own personal interest, and that we think the same about you.

---

Roon, you are right about the ABM and the environmentalist legislation. However, you are wrong about the terrorist implication of the GC.

The GC is very restrictive. It is very precise and only covers fighting men captured in the course of a war involving two or more state in the international scene. It does not cover terrorists, spys or civil war fighters.

The problem here is that some terrorist were captured while they were fighting as Taliban soldiers during the course of an international war as defined by the GC. Therefore, all those Al-Queda terrorists who were captured in Afghanistan and who were fighting as Taliban soldiers automatically fall under the protection of the GC.

I'm not happy about it. That's just the law (and BTW even in international affairs, the law should be 1- applicable as it is at the time of the action and 2- in case of doubt in the application of the law, we should always apply the law in a sense that will be most beneficial to the accused

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:


You can't break a treaty with someone who isnt around anymore.

---

Actually, this is a misconception. In case of a nations breakup, all treaties signed by that nation and with that nation are still applicable. All former state automatically get all treaty rights and obligations. And, they can cancell treaties using the usual diplomatic channels.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:


] who were fighting as Taliban soldiers automatically fall under the protection of the GC.

I'm not happy about it. That's just the law (and BTW even in international affairs, the law should be 1- applicable as it is at the time of the action and 2- in case of doubt in the application of the law, we should always apply the law in a sense that will be most beneficial to the accused

---

If the Taliban were a recognized government you would have a point but only soemthing like 3 middle eastern states actually recognized them as a legitimate government. As it is Taliban does not come under the GC, because the GC covers legitimate states and governments...but to be honest I havent seen the text of the GC since I was a teen, so I dont recall if there were provisions for terrorist organizations or illigitmate governments/unrecognized governments.

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:



If the Taliban were a recognized government you would have a point but only soemthing like 3 middle eastern states actually recognized them as a legitimate government. As it is Taliban does not come under the GC, because the GC covers legitimate states and governments...but to be honest I havent seen the text of the GC since I was a teen, so I dont recall if there were provisions for terrorist organizations or illigitmate governments/unrecognized governments.

---

The Taliban being an unrecongnized governement to the US (and most nations) have nothing to do with this. The Convention protects any fighter captured by a foreing state during the course of a war.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

[Ryanamur]

Another interesting point about the GC:

1- It must be respected by all states that did sign it even if the other state didn't sign it.

2- It is now international law and it applies to all states wether or not they signed it.

Oh by the way, according to the INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS the prisoners are NOT being mistreated and are not being deprived of their rights.

Though I haven't checked todays headlines so I may beout of date.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:


Actually, this is a misconception. In case of a nations breakup, all treaties signed by that nation and with that nation are still applicable. All former state automatically get all treaty rights and obligations. And, they can cancell treaties using the usual diplomatic channels.

---

According to who and what are the precedent cases cited?