Posted on 09/24/2006 7:14:59 AM PDT by PWDirector
There are always political considerations that must be taken into account for every facet of life. Life is political and politics are life. Continued survival of all cultures is accomplished by political maneuvering and deals with a devil of sorts.
Regards, Ivan
I stand corrected. My other objections remain intact though.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty not a law. What jurisdiction over the US compliance to a treaty does the judicial branch have?
The U.S. is bound by the Geneva Convention, not because a Judge says so, but because Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America says so.
The original debating point of this thread is flawed. See Post 8.
The issue is not whether or not the U.S. is bound by the Geneva Convention. It is.
The issue is that the Geneva Convention itself excludes terrorists from having any belligerent rights under the Geneva Convention.
It does make things a bit difficult when you're the only one playing by the rules.
Someone ask McCain and his Senate Al-Queda Caucus what the Geneva Convention says about the 2 U.S. soldiers who were burned alive and dragged through the streets last week. McCain, Collins, Graham and Warner are traitors to this nation. Period.
The original issue which you quoted and addressed was :
"The Judge that ruled that the US is bound by the Geneva Convention is wrong, ........"
That is not an issue to be decided by a Judge. That issue is directly addressed by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The separate issue of "stateless non-signatories" is irrelevant since Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention specifically extends POW rights to "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".
In other words, you do not need to be a member of the armed forces of a signatory nation to be granted POW rights under the Geneva Convention.
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention only requires that the combatant be a member of a group "belonging to a Party to the conflict".
As a "party to the conflict", the combatant himself or his representative has standing to bring an issue of noncompliance of the Geneva Convention himself without the need to secure the intercession of a signatory nation.
Such a combatant, however, does have to 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 Judge is in error in his decision not because these combatants are stateless or because "the U.S. is not bound by the Geneva Convention" but because these combatants fail the requirements set forth by the Geneva that they do not impersonate civilians, that they carry arms openly and that they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
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.