Gitmo detainees entitled to Geneva protections

[StreetScooby 5]

I understand that. The question is more - when does the Geneva convention kick in? Declaration of war? Or, other? Also, why not just kill the "terrorist" out right (ignoring the media consequences in this discussion, for now)?

We are all engines of karma

[nathaniel 0]

So umm, who's going to be responsible for not having treated all these people according to the GCs for the past 4-5 years?

Will the next spin be that they weren't covered by the GCs until the prez said so, or that they were always treated according to the GCs? Or will we just conveniently ignore this question and pretend like nothing happened?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I understand that. The question is more - when does the Geneva convention kick in? Declaration of war? Or, other? Also, why not just kill the "terrorist" out right (ignoring the media consequences in this discussion, for now)?

The convention doesn't "kick in." The convention is binding at all times when there are people that are in any kind of custody that fall in to the protected persons category, when they are being held by a state that is party to the convention.

"Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances." -Geneva 4, Art. 1

As for why states don't usually just kill the other party:

"Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." -Geneva 1, Art. 50

So, if the killing isn't justified for military goals, it's a war crime. That's why some of the Nazis and Rwandans ended up on trial for war crimes. Just because you're in a conflict doesn't mean you can kill anyone you want to just because you don't like them or the restrictions placed on imprisoning them.

[GQ_jumper 4]

as Nightingale said, the Geneva convention is very good about keeping soldiers from basically "raping and pillaging", rule of thumb, in major ground combat operations if they are part of the enemy military it's usually kill on sight unless they are actively surrendering, in which case they become EPW's. In post war activites ie, insurgencies, we pretty much follow the guideline if they have a weapon or are reaching for one, they are fair game, any other circumstances killing is unjustified.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[StreetScooby 5]

Ah, so it sounds like my question really involved Rules Of Engagement, not GC. Thanks Nightingale and GQ_jumper.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 23]

Quote

When the state that they are a national of becomes a party to the convention.

In the case of Afghanistan, that would be 1949, Iraq in 1956.

Don't they have to be part of the country in questions army or militia? Officially?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

When the state that they are a national of becomes a party to the convention.

In the case of Afghanistan, that would be 1949, Iraq in 1956.

Don't they have to be part of the country in questions army or militia? Officially?

Even if true (and I don't claim to know) that's not much of a restriction. Taking the US as example:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

That covers a large fraction of the male population.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Don't they have to be part of the country in questions army or militia? Officially?

Only to be afforded protection under the 3rd Geneva Convention.

Otherwise they're afforded protection under the 4th Geneva Convention which specifically covers everyone who isn't already covered by the 3rd, (ie the idea of there being cracks through which people can slip simply by virtue of their being given novel titles like "enemy combatant" is a complete fantasy).

Nightingale posted the relevant quote from the 4th Geneva Convention above but I'll repeat it here for completeness:

Quote

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Don't they have to be part of the country in questions army or militia? Officially?

Only to be afforded protection under the 3rd Geneva Convention.

Otherwise they're afforded protection under the 4th Geneva Convention which specifically covers everyone who isn't already covered by the 3rd, (ie the idea of there being cracks through which people can slip simply by virtue of their being given novel titles like "enemy combatant" is a complete fantasy).

Nightingale posted the relevant quote from the 4th Geneva Convention above but I'll repeat it here for completeness:

Quote

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

well, however you look at it, it the Bush administration (and hence the USA) has been in violation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Don't they have to be part of the country in questions army or militia? Officially?

Only to be afforded protection under the 3rd Geneva Convention.

Otherwise they're afforded protection under the 4th Geneva Convention which specifically covers everyone who isn't already covered by the 3rd, (ie the idea of there being cracks through which people can slip simply by virtue of their being given novel titles like "enemy combatant" is a complete fantasy).

Nightingale posted the relevant quote from the 4th Geneva Convention above but I'll repeat it here for completeness:

Quote

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

OK, so this makes sense to me but what about those caught in Iraq that are not Iraqi ? I would think that thier presense would be viewed differently?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Nightingale 0]

If they are from a country that is a party to the convention (most are), they are still afforded protections under the convention, no matter where they are caught. So, no. It doesn't make a difference.

[StreetScooby 5]

So, sounds like it's best to kill them out right in battle and avoid all the hassle.

We are all engines of karma

[Nightingale 0]

Yes, but we can't just kill them unless it is necessary. See quote from Geneva 1, above.

You can't always get a clean kill on the field of battle. You're always going to have a few that surrender, a few that are wounded, and a few that are captured by other parties and turned over to you.

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

I've not read it.

Well, you're a soldier aren't you? Which makes it surprising to me that you haven't read it.

Is it because you prefer to apply "gods law"?

I hear there are some people in Somalia and other places around the world who feel the exact same way, so you are in good company.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Yes, but we can't just kill them unless it is necessary. See quote from Geneva 1, above.

Agreed. Formal semantics can really complicate things in real life.

We are all engines of karma

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

So, sounds like it's best to kill them out right in battle and avoid all the hassle.

Most of the residents of Gitmo were not captured in battle.

Also, what would you have our troops do to ensure that terrorists are killed outright? Shoot those that surrendered after a firefight, walk around the battlefield putting one in the head of terrorists who are down wounded? You'll still be violating the convention.

Edit: Whoops, missed nightingales post - she already said what I did.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Also, what would you have our troops do to ensure that terrorists are killed outright? Shoot those that surrendered after a firefight, walk around the battlefield putting one in the head of terrorists who are down wounded?

I don't know what I would have our troops do.

It just seems like our troops are incredibly burdened with semantics, while our enemies aren't. We're not playing on a level field, and it's by choice. Someday, we might not be that good.

We are all engines of karma

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

It just seems like our troops are incredibly burdened with semantics, while our enemies aren't. We're not playing on a level field, and it's by choice. Someday, we might not be that good.

If we want the moral high ground, that is the way it must be. Unless we want our troops to act like the terrorist 'animals' they are fighting, that is the way it must be.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

If we want the moral high ground,...

Does that preclude buying them TVs and showing them Baywatch?

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Also, what would you have our troops do to ensure that terrorists are killed outright? Shoot those that surrendered after a firefight, walk around the battlefield putting one in the head of terrorists who are down wounded?

I don't know what I would have our troops do.

It just seems like our troops are incredibly burdened with semantics, while our enemies aren't. We're not playing on a level field, and it's by choice. Someday, we might not be that good.

It's a field we chose to play on.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

It just seems like our troops are incredibly burdened with semantics, while our enemies aren't. We're not playing on a level field, and it's by choice. Someday, we might not be that good.

If we want the moral high ground, that is the way it must be. Unless we want our troops to act like the terrorist 'animals' they are fighting, that is the way it must be.

Exactly. We didn't play on a level playing field in WW2 either, and we still managed to prevail. If I know my history correctly, the Allies had no mass-extermination camps in Europe, no death marches in the Pacific, no POW camps where the prisoners were systematically starved to death; and the enemy POWs who were housed in the US for the duration of the war were treated pretty damn good.

[billvon 3,120]

>We didn't play on a level playing field in WW2 either, and we
>still managed to prevail.

Indeed. One might argue that had a lot to do with our victory.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

so really Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others are war criminals?

[Nightingale 0]

I think Bush was following some very bad advice.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think Bush was following some very bad advice.

I don't think that has ever really been a proper defence has it?

I guess my question is: Would Bush et al be war criminals due to wilfully circumventing the Geneva Concention?