Post #25,517
1/24/02 1:59:37 PM
|
Limitations
1) The Geneva convention provides that once hostilities are over.... POWs must be released.
2) The Geneva convention limits the the amount of information POWs can be forced
to give up (ie. prioners can not be pressured/tortured into giving up information). Unlikely as it may be.....if a nuclear device gets detonated on American soil, those dudes are gonna get tortured for everything they know and probably injected with every experimental truth serum the military has.
And it may happen anyway.
|
Post #25,526
1/24/02 2:15:43 PM
|
Re: Limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>
1) The Geneva convention provides that once hostilities are over.... POWs must be released.
<<<<<<<<<
Who signed peace treaty with whom?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) The Geneva convention limits the the amount of information POWs can be forced
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Come back with an example of tortures you know about? Please?
Mind you, no one mentioned how it all apllies to al Quaeda.
|
Post #25,551
1/24/02 3:19:29 PM
|
Huh?
I fear you are ascribing a position to my statements. I don't have
one (or at least haven't communicated one).
I was just pointing why the Geneva Conventions could be argued to have limitations.
1) International Law which makes us release terrorists because
they acquired POW status is perhaps not a good thing.
2) Its forbidden to pressure POWs for information. Anyone who truly believes
that there has been no pressure are deluding themselves. This is more than likely why Rumsfeld chooses his words carefully when he says the prisoners
are being treated "broadly" within the scope of the Geneva Conventions.
On the question of participation:
Afghanistan and the USA are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
The Conventions and the Protocol are applicable in case of declared war or of any other armed conflict arising between two or more of the Parties to the Conventions and Protocol I from the beginning of such a situation, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. These agreements also cover armed conflicts in which people are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination.[I, 2; II, 2; III, 2; IV, 2; P. I, 1]
[link|http://www.icrc.org/|http://www.icrc.org/]
Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state's armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not qualify. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status.
[link|http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0111-06.htm|http://www.commondr.../0111-06.htm]
|
Post #25,567
1/24/02 4:26:29 PM
|
Good point
Damn good.
Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state's armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not qualify.
But until they are identified as such, they must be treated as POW's.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #25,606
1/24/02 5:50:43 PM
|
And, as POWs...
they cannot be questioned (how will we find out if they are al Quaeda?) and should be let go now that the war is over (al Quaeda or not, since we don't know). Should we do it that way?
|
Post #25,676
1/25/02 8:45:38 AM
|
Is that really true?
I thought the GC prohibited torture, not interrogation. If I remember my Army training on the handling of prisoners (wish I could remember the mnemonic), it went something like; Secure, Search, Segregate, Identify, Interrogate, Transport.
That may not be correct in all details, but I remember most distinctly my instructor emphasizing that we should not "get carried away" when questioning prisoners. He did not say we were prohibited from questioning them.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #25,786
1/25/02 6:28:07 PM
|
Re: Is that really true?
Ok, so we can question them. Good. Did anyone complain about torture as of now? Could you point me at a link?
And what about the other privilige POWs enjoy: to go home after peace accord? Looks like the war is over. Should we release them all now because some are, potentially, legitimate POWs?
|
Post #25,789
1/25/02 6:42:10 PM
|
Note: war not over
Perhaps it is in the US's interests to make it look as if it's not over, but the reports say we blew up a pretty good weapons/ammo dump today.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
