Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Americans Should Not Die For Article 3, Geneva Conventions
Strata-Sphere ^ | September 15, 2006 | AJ Strata

Posted on 09/16/2006 9:20:47 AM PDT by bobsunshine

If the Rep and Dem Senators leading the fight to gut our interrogation options in the face of a vaguely worded clause in the Geneva Conventions just stopped talking and thought about what they were saying, they would be surprised to find out they were interpretting the conventions in such a way as to violate the purpose for the conventions to exist in the first place.

The Geneva Conventions were developed to assure soldiers and civilians were treated humanely during the inhumane times of war. Therefore, any act by the terrorists should be no more allowed than acts of misguided legislators that violate this basic intent of the conventions. Right now there are some seriously misguided Senators who are claiming their fear of future violations of the conventions require innocent civilians to probably die now. In a perfect example of living in a bubble, and letting the letter of the law undermine the intent of the law, we have seen Rep and Dem Senators risk lives today so they can pretend they are saving lives tomorrow......

Bush noted that our IC interrogators will not and should not expose themselves to legal jeopardy over this insane clause. But what he did not say, and did not need to say, is the conventions cannot be interpretted in such a manner as to result in the very things they were designed to avoid. Those balking at clarifying these conventions so we can use tough questioning methods on some exceptionally hardened and dangerous people need to wake up. Or they will be standing at the base of a burning high rise filled with dead and dying people while holding onto a piece of international paper trying to convince themselves those above them are dying for a good cause.

(Excerpt) Read more at strata-sphere.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gc; geneva; mccain; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
If you haven't already, read Captain Ed's editorial at:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008069.php

"Senator McCain is hardly the only American POW who had experience with GC violations, and that's the point. We have yet to fight against a wartime enemy that followed the GC with any consistency at all. The Germans routinely violated it even before Hitler began issuing orders to shoot captured pilots, and the massacre at Malmedy only crystallized what had been fairly brutal treatment at the hands of the Nazis for American prisoners (the Luftwaffe was one notable exception). The Japanese treatment of POWs was nothing short of barbaric, both before and after Bataan. The same is true for the North Koreans and the Chinese in the Korean War, and McCain himself is a routine example of the kind of treatment our men suffered at the hands of the Vietnamese."

1 posted on 09/16/2006 9:20:48 AM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

But David Gregory said that countries like North Korea and Iran would only break the Geneva Conventions if the U.S. did it first. Don't you know that there would be no torture if it weren't for us evil Americans?


2 posted on 09/16/2006 9:30:14 AM PDT by bushinohio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushinohio
I love how President Bush put Gregory in his place:

Gregory (first interruption/follow-up): "But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends --"

Bush: "The point I just made is the most important point."
3 posted on 09/16/2006 9:40:20 AM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bushinohio

Seems to me this question could be moot if we quit taking live prisoners. But then what do I know? LOL!


4 posted on 09/16/2006 9:41:18 AM PDT by basil (Exercise your Second Amendment Rights--buy another gun today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Someone please ask john mccain and that little twirp-a-like, graham, when al qaeda signed on to the GC because apparently I missed that.

appeaser traitors.


5 posted on 09/16/2006 9:48:30 AM PDT by jackv (just shakin' my head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
I really don't understand why our senile Senator, John Warner, wants to kill me and my family, but he does.

There's never been an instance where any of our enemies have adhered to the Geneva Conventions ~ and he knows it.

6 posted on 09/16/2006 9:48:48 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushinohio

David Gregory is quickly becoming nthing more than a Bush hater in the White House Press corps.....

Thanks for the posting from AJStrata on Strata-Sphere. Very good.


7 posted on 09/16/2006 9:50:45 AM PDT by John Carey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: basil
Seems to me this question could be moot if we quit taking live prisoners. But then what do I know?

This is about questioning the prisoners to protect against future terrorist attacks.

8 posted on 09/16/2006 9:52:01 AM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Gregory is a 'snot-nosed punk'... whatever he 'thinks' is important... is nothing but some Dhimmicrat's, latest talking-point.


9 posted on 09/16/2006 9:52:57 AM PDT by johnny7 (“And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda... what's Fonzie like?!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
The Geneva Convention badly need update. It's a different world of warfare now. UbL doesn't fit into any category of U.N. standards of combat. Multinational terrorist groups have to be defined and dealt with by the tired old Geneva Convention. Otherwise, we continue this butthump of terminolgoy and nomenclature.

OR, we can ignore the U.N. and go our own way.

OR, both.

10 posted on 09/16/2006 9:55:53 AM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv

SCOTUS signed them up and that's the real problem. It no longer matters how the treaty defines it as a matter of law. Short of SCOTUS reversing itself or the US abandoning the treaty and drawing up a new one, thus breaking SCOTUS's hold on scrotus, it doesn't matter how the Convention was meant to be implemented. That suxor but there it is.


11 posted on 09/16/2006 9:57:12 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Katherine Harris for US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
I've posted this comment on several blogs the last few days:

Will Sens. McCain, Graham and Warner come to my house after I am killed in the next terrorist attack and explain to my kids why upholding the Geneva Conventions were more important than them growing up with a mom? It really is that simple to me.

12 posted on 09/16/2006 10:00:04 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Vote as if your life depends on it -- because it does!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
To the best of my knowledge the only applicable clause in the GC regarding terrorists would be under "spies and saboteurs" which I believe are capital offenses. Treatment of prisoners under this document relates only to uniformed troops of a government.
13 posted on 09/16/2006 10:02:05 AM PDT by logic101.net (Support OUR troops, NOT their's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

Yep and we haven't been punishing their illegal combatancy.


14 posted on 09/16/2006 10:06:18 AM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Why is the focus on Article 3? Article 17 is applicable to the interrogating of POW's.

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

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.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

15 posted on 09/16/2006 10:38:32 AM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

Yes spies and the like can be shot on sight...
Also, isnt against the GC for soliders to be tried in a civilian court...I thought as POWs, they could only be tried in Military,,,,


16 posted on 09/16/2006 11:25:41 AM PDT by Yorlik803 ( When are we going to draw a line a say"this far and no farther")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Lets set the record straight, Terrorists are NOT POWs. If anything they are spies. Per Protocol #1, we NEVER signed the agreement that Terrorists should be covered by the Geneva Convention. From Reagan's own hand:

January 29, 1987

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, concluded at Geneva on June 10, 1977. I also enclose for the information of the Senate the report of the Department of State on the Protocol.....

Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves.....

In fact, we must not, and need not, give recognition and protection to terrorist groups as a price for progress in humanitarian law....

To this day Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions has not been adopted by the United States.

Sweetnees & Light -reagans rejection of GC Protocol 1


17 posted on 09/16/2006 11:27:49 AM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

President Bush "Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that Al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland."

'nuff said.

As to hypothetical violaters of GC who may hurt US soldiers this is a straw man argument. Our subservience to rules designed for a different era and enemy will not ensure anything from the current barbarian crew of killers who have no allegiance to anything but our destruction by any and all means.

US law and our Constitution trumps anything international. It is for us and US to decide.


18 posted on 09/16/2006 12:33:16 PM PDT by dervish (RIP Oriana Fallaci)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803
A POW is strictly a detainee and cannot be tired for being a member of the other force. They are held until the end of hostilities. However; what we have are in large part not POW's because they are not uniformed troops of a legitimate government. They are basically freelancers who hide behind women and children (the are sooooo brave, aren't they?). The GC does not recognize them as legitimate combatants.
19 posted on 09/16/2006 12:48:08 PM PDT by logic101.net (Support OUR troops, NOT their's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bushinohio

Did he actually say that?


20 posted on 09/16/2006 1:07:39 PM PDT by GW and Twins Pawpaw (Sheepdog for Five [My grandkids are way more important than any lefty's feelings!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson