Subject:
|
Re: Geneva Convention Violation by Rumsfeld & "unlawful combatants"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:55:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
560 times
|
| |
|
|
> The Geneva convention has been mostly honored by us... (when we choose to
> recognise our adversaries people/troops as formal belligerents.) In those
> cases where it has not been honored by us after we said we would, we have a
> good track record of locating and punishing transgressors.
I understand there are outstanding cases [from both sides] from Vietnam & Korea.
> Hence while I agree with John's sentiments (those who constantly point out
> our faults as a way to say we are all wrong, instead of as something that
> needs to be corrected, are no friends...) I disagree with his assessment in
> this instance. Our case in the international court of world opinion is
> greatly weakened by Guantanamo Bay, and there is not much that can be done
> about it now.
This powerful text lists the articles that have been broken:
One rule for them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
==+==
...Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British
citizens) are
held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US
government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners
arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In
this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were
kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out
goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their
own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a
penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess
facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for
physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to
write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).
They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of
active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation
might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules
that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of
birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them
information of any kind whatever".
The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The
same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the
US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is
itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people
detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps
(al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.
==+==
The "unlawful combatants" line is interesting. I expect 118 is debatable.
See more of Manbiot's work online:
http://www.monbiot.com/
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
