Posted on 07/12/2006 11:31:17 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 govern the treatment of lawful combatants and civilians during wartime. But now a new Pentagon memorandum concludes that Common Article 3 of the Conventions also governs the treatment of unlawful combatants: pirates, drug mafias and especially terrorists. So, five years after 9/11, the U.S. is about to give to people who ram commercial jets into buildings many of the same legal privileges and immunities as the average GI.
How did we get to this Osama in Genevaland world? Credit belongs to last week's Hamdan Supreme Court decision, and to Pentagon officials who have overinterpreted the meaning of that decision.
At a minimum, the Bush Administration should have thought carefully about Hamdan and interpreted it as narrowly as possible. Instead, Mr. England's memo interprets the ruling in the broadest way possible, applying the standards of Common Article 3 to all "DoD orders, policies, directives, execute orders and doctrine." As a matter of law, every other government agency, including the CIA, will now have to follow the Pentagon's line.
What exactly constitutes personal dignity and outrages upon it? Who knows, though we bet the ACLU will be more than happy to supply some answers. Our guess is that the concept can be read so expansively as to forbid the U.S. from so much as shouting at captured al Qaeda suspects, never mind "waterboarding" them, as was reportedly done to break KSM. In a war in which actionable intelligence acquired from captives is crucial to uncovering terrorist plots and preventing future attacks, it's hard to imagine a greater self-inflicted setback to counterterror efforts.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Again, we are totally handicapping ourselves in the fight of our lives, the war on terror against brutal, murdering terrorists who want to kill us all.
"Believe it or not, Congress can still fix this royal mess by following the Supreme Court's Hamdan order to write a new set of procedures and rules for handling unlawful combatants. And Congress can and should say that it is these new rules, not Geneva Common Article 3, that is the controlling law in America. The Pentagon may have surrendered prematurely to legal generals, but that doesn't mean the American people want to. "
And Congress better do just that.
THANKS Fair Opinion for starting this thread and your posts.
"And Congress better do just that."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664824/posts
I just pinged you to this thread.
Iraq 29.05.1934
United States of America 27.07.1929 04.02.1932
That date is for Iraq's Ratification/Accession. They did not sign the document. The US both signed and Ratified the document.
1) Ratification : a treaty is generally open for signature for a certain time following the conference which has adopted it. However, a signature is not binding on a State unless it has been endorsed by ratification. The time limits having elapsed, the Conventions and the Protocols are no longer open for signature. The States which have not signed them may at any time accede or, in the appropriate circumstances, succeed to them.
Accession : instead of signing and then ratifying a treaty, a State may become party to it by the single act called accession.
2) Reservation / Declaration : unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when ratifying, acceding or succeeding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty).
"And Congress can and should say that it is these new rules, not Geneva Common Article 3, that is the controlling law in America."
To what end? The SCOTUS has already ignored Congressional directive in ruling on Hamdan's habeas petition to start with. What Congress SHOULD do is vote to impeach the SCOTUS' Gang of Five over their various crimes against the Constitution. But they won't.
Not to mention that we are not fighting the Iraqis, but the terrorist organizations of the world.
They must be laughing themselves silly over this.
So who do we complain to since the terrorists are not abiding by this convention and are torturing and cutting off the heads of our prisoners.
Can't put Iraq on the docket.
Can we put the Muslim religion on the docket since they are conducting a 'holy war'?
The only reason I can see for the crippling of our own security by our own doing would be the presage for the New World Order. That's crazy, but things in the world are getting crazy and unstable, who knows?
"What Congress SHOULD do is vote to impeach the SCOTUS' Gang of Five over their various crimes against the Constitution. "
I agree.
The Bush Administration was right the first time, when they declared that the terrorists are "unlawful combattants" and the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.
PART VII APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF CIVILIANS Art. 81. Persons who follow the armed forces without directly belonging thereto, such as correspondents, newspaper reporters, sutlers, or contractors, who fall into the hands of the enemy, and whom the latter think fit to detain, shall be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they are in possession of an authorization from the military authorities of the armed forces which they were following.
WTF is this about?
Is it, the people detained, are going to be
considered GC 'protected persons' until
a tribunal decides otherwise ...
or something else?
Why pay any attention *at all* to the Swiss?
You Yanks make better cheese in Wisconsin than they do in Switzerland, their banks' legendary secrecy has acted as a bastion for evil-doers hiding their wealth, and their army knives do not stack up favorably against the KA-Bar or the Fairbairn-Sykes.
And Pollyanna is a better kid's story than Heidi ever was.
Geneva-convention-Shlameena-convention. Waterboard them all.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.