Posted on 07/11/2006 6:59:28 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees By NEIL A. LEWIS and JOHN O’NEIL
WASHINGTON, July 11 — In a sweeping change of policy, the Pentagon has decided that it will treat all detainees in compliance with the minimum standards spelled out in the Geneva conventions, a senior defense official said today.
The new policy comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling last month invalidating a system of military tribunals the Pentagon had created to try suspected terrorists, and just before Congress takes up the question of a replacement system in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today.
As part of its decision, the court found that a key provision of the Geneva conventions, known as Common Article 3, did apply to terror suspects, contradicting the position taken by the Bush administration.
The Pentagon memo allowing detainees the protections of Article 3 was first reported today by The Financial Times.
In 2002, President Bush declared that members of Al Qaeda and other terror suspects seized during the invasion of Afghanistan were “illegal combatants,’’ and so were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions, which among other things set forth rules for the treatment of prisoners of war.
The main thrust of the recent Supreme Court ruling, in a case known as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, was that the administration had exceeded its authority by creating a system of tribunals without the approval of Congress. But the court also declared that the suspects fell under Article 3, which applies to all “armed combatants,’’ and that detainees were able to assert their rights under Article 3 in federal court.
President Bush last week said that he “would comply’’ with the court’s ruling, but he has given no details of how he would do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
No problem. The Geneva Treaty says that combatants who don't wear uniforms and who hide among civilian populations get no protections.
What a whimp.
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
So how in God's name does this apply to non-uniformed terrorists? Once again, the Supreme Court finds a penumbra.
Doesn't the convention also say that anyone out of Uniform can be shot as a spy???
I don't think the convention discusses punishment.
Out of uniform persons are illegal combatants. Once the US takes them into custody, and provides those flashy orange jumpsuits, they are detained, and are protected.
At Camp Delta, the US guards were moved out of barracks into tents, until permanent housing for the detainees could be arranged, because the Geneva Convention requires detainees be housed in similar facilities to the detaining power's guards.
The big thing about this case is that it affirmed that we can detain the terrorists indefinitely. After that, we can worry about the nitpicky things like how to have trials or tribunals.
since we've been doing so all along, should be no big deal.
I suggest the NYTimes is making it up. The fellows in Guantanamo already get Geneva Convention standards of care.
The guards were moved out of hard barracks because the Geneva Convention requires that detainees be housed in a manner commensurate with the detaining power soldiers. The guards have been used as the standard for that.
There is no change. They can be held indefinitely. The SCOTUS gave the administration everything they wanted, except some details about how one would have war crime trials, which normally don't begin until after the war is over. No sweat, we will still be there.
And, moreover, have said terrorists (uniformed or not uniformed) signed this Geneva Treaty - that is, are they now being recognized as a nation-state? [Quick answer: No.]
So, no rights under the US Constitution for those who are non-US citizens; and no rights under this Geneva Treaty as a non-signatory.
Or ... is this now the beginning of "World Government" in earnest via the back-door?
Ralph Peters mentioned one possible change in US approach towards unlawful combatants consistent with the Geneva Conventions in yesterday's NY Post - refuse to accept their surrender in the field and kill them in place. I like that.
Right. "Following the Geneva Treaty" would mean "not offering the protections described in the Geneva Convention(s) to illegal combatants". What the article means to say is that we're going to offer those protections to people whom the treaty explicitly does not protect.
All the "Geneva" discussions of the past few years have made one thing hilariously clear: most people on the left don't have the first clue what the "Geneva Conventions" are. They know they're a nicey-nice thing and that it covers everyone, that's all they really know about them. (Or I should say, "it": the left doesn't seem to know there's more than one Geneva Convention.)
You're saying orange jumpsuit we give them = uniform?
No.
Are you honestly suggesting that Bush not comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court? And that by not doing so he is a wimp?
Please say you are kidding. My friend, you are not a conservative, you are advocating that the President break the law of the land in a manner that would require his impeachment.
Seems to me you are:
a. kidding
b. an idiot
c. a monarchist/facist
d. belong at the DU
meanwhile the enemey will continue to dress in civilian clothing
hid behind women and children
hide weapons in schools
hide weapons in mosques
etc etc etc
basically ignoring those same genevea conventions
There goes breakfast....
ME TOO...
What this means is that the left has successfully removed the incentive for foreign parties to act in accordance with the Conventions, and moved the Conventions from an effort to remove civilians from conflicts to a simple game of gotcha during war. This action will cause many attrocious deaths of innocents, and is dispicable.
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.