Posted on 09/24/2006 7:14:59 AM PDT by PWDirector
To my American Friends,
The Judge that ruled that the US is bound by the Geneva Convention is wrong, and should be removed from the Bench for such an outrageous misinterpretation. Read the Geneva Convention here: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
For the US to be bound by the Convention, a number of circumstances must be present, including: (A Party is a Country that signed up as a party to the Geneva Convention)
"1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
The terrorists that we are at war with do not comply with No. 1, and do not comply with (b), (c), or (d) of No. 2. Therefore, the U. S. is not obligated to follow the Convention relative to those terrorists.
The Convention also states that:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
It is clear that the terrorists have not accepted and applied the provisions of the Convention due to the beheading, dragging our soldiers through the streets, homicide bombings, and torture of our soldiers. Therefore the U. S. is not bound by the Convention relative to terrorists.
If that crazy, stupid, America-hating, liberal Judge’s ruling that the U. S. is bound by the Geneva Convention is to be upheld, then the U. S. can execute the terrorists as spies.
I humbly pray that God would protect the U. S. from the Liberals.
"If that crazy, stupid, America-hating, liberal Judge’s..."
You've kinda distilled the problem right there.
...The terrorists that we are at war with do not comply with No. 1, and do not comply with ...
I'm afraid we are at war with home-grown terrorists too. The appeasing and sypathetic LIBERALS in the press, the DIMocRATic party and hollyweird do more harm to our country combined than al-qaeda could EVER do!
Have we ever been engaged in a war, where the enemy has treated our prisoners according to the constraints of the Convention? That in itself would show that there is no treaty, since the parties to it do not exist.
"If that crazy, stupid, America-hating, liberal Judge’s ruling.."
That would be the Supreme Court and the Hamdan decision. I agree with you, the Geneva Convention doesn't cover these terrorists. But 5 libs on the SC just made it so.
Here is the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf#search=%22hamdan%20decision%20supreme%20court%22
Here is the WaPo take on it. (Just a straighforward recap) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html
This is the greatest reason for every conservative to hit the polls hard this November, and vote REPUBLICAN! We have to retain the Senate to have a chance of putting a conservative judge in for the majority vote on the SC!!!
With a different court, this decision can be overturned in the future. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it for now, and if Dems take the Senate, we will be forever.
< Phraseology Police>
Well, actually it is. The Constitution itself defines the "supreme law of the land" as including ratified treaties. (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution)
Your point is that terrorists do not qualify for the belligerent rights under the Geneva Convention and you are absolutely correct. If the U.S. denies belligerent right privileges to terrorists (which include POW rights), the U.S. is simply following the Geneva Convention.
However, by phrasing your point by saying that "THE U. S. IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION" you are handing our opponents a ready-made Straw-man they can easily beat the stuffings out of.
Your point is actually, "UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION, THE U. S. IS NOT OBLIGATED TO GRANT TERRORISTS BELLIGERENT RIGHTS".
Your original title might be eye catching but it is self defeating.
< /Phraseology Police>
I would think your logic is sound but then I'm also not a liberal judge........
I would also think the fact that the Jihadi's violate every condition that would preclude them from protections under the treaty even if their home countries were signatories would be important. But then I'm not a liberal judge...........
I would also think the fact that the US wasn't a signatory would be relevant and that the judiciary hasn't the power to engage in treaties with other nations but then I'm not a liberal judge................
While I understand your sentiment, your statement is untrue. The US IS obligated to follow the Geneva Convention......
BUT- the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists.
Terrorism is an ideology, not a country, so they cannot be parties to the contract, nor do they observe its provisions.
If it attacks like an animal, exterminate it like one.
I went and read the Geneva Convention and didn't have to go far to disprove your point...........sorry.
"Article 5
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
No such tribunal even exists.
"I would also think the fact that the US wasn't a signatory."
ummmmmmmmmmmmm........
Signatories to the Geneva Convention - 1949 and their dates of signature. And this is only the "U's"
Uganda 18.05.1964
Ukraine 12.12.1949
United Arab Emirates 10.05.1972
United Kingdom 08.12.1949
United States of America 12.08.1949 !!!
Uruguay 12.08.1949
Uzbekistan 08.10.1993
Actually, yes: the Western European Theater in World War II.
It is true that there were isolated cases of individual military units on both sides committing POW atrocities, the Malmedy massacre committed by a German unit and the Dachau Massacre committed by an American unit, for example.
However, over all, both the American Government and the German Government took pains to treat their Western European Front POW's well in the hope that the other side would do the same.
There was a documentary on the History Channel about an American flier that was shot down in France and was captured by the Gestapo in civilian clothes while trying to escape. He, along with some other fliers also captured by the Gestapo in civilian clothes, ended up in a Gestapo death camp where they were literally being starved and worked to death.
One day, they spotted a Luftwaffe officer visiting the camp and one of the American fliers who spoke German risked running up to the Luftwaffe officer and shouting that there were five prisoners there who were military fliers and that they needed to be rescued from the death camp. The Luftwaffe officer said nothing and went away. However, two days later, that Luftwaffe officer returned with military orders in hand to take custody of the American fliers who were then transferred to a Luft-Stalag that, to them, seemed like Club Med with warm clothes and good food.
By contrast, on the Eastern European Front, neither side followed the Geneva Convention and POW's died by the hundreds of thousands. The Japanese had never ratified the Geneva Convention and their treatment of POW's was drastically different than the German treatment of American POW's.
The bottom line is that the Geneva Convention works when the two sides are somewhat civilized and even the Nazis were more civilized than the Islamist terrorists we are dealing with today.
Judges have no humility and no shame. I gave up when that judge in PA presumed to tell us what science is. Now, the SC endangers us all by wading into war policy.
hey, I'm just pointing out inaccuracies in the comments. And they're rather LARGE inaccuracies. Doesn't make sense to me to argue a point with falsehoods.
Therefore, the convention does not apply.
Putting rules on warfare to make it more compassionate is stupid. Warefare must be cruel and harsh, so it ends quicker. Gen Sherman was the first modern Military man who said this.
The Conventions were created to put a happy face on war so the politcians can sleep easier at night.
If that's true, then why all the complicated "interrogation" arguments from the Bush administration?
I would think Karl would have figured this all out before you or I, no?
Simpler Karl-argument - "Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists." If he's said that somewhere, then I've certainly missed it. Seems to me that the hundreds of lawyers working for Karl would have spotted that pretty early on, no?
The Geneva Convention is a treaty not a law. What jurisdiction over the US compliance to a treaty does the judicial branch have?
It should correctly state:
The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist, not that the US is not bound by the GC.
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.