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 Judges 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.
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.