Are the GTMO Detainees Covered by the Geneva Convention?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OldRegular, May 3, 2009.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I am starting this thread to keep the discussion of whether waterboarding constitutes torture or whether the terrorists in GTMO are covered by the Geneva Conventions out of the thread obama: waterboarding vs. slaughtering the unborn

    The Geneva Conventions are found on the following:

    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

    Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

    Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949, entry into force 21 October 1950

    PART I
    GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Article 4

    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    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, fulfil 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.

    3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


    PART III
    CAPTIVITY
    SECTION I
    BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY
    Article 17

    Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

    It is obvious that the GTMO detainees do not meet the requirements in Part I, Article 4, Paragraph B. Furthermore under Part III, Article 17 it is obvious that the GTMO detainees are not covered to the Geneva Conventions. They are certainly are not subject to the Geneva Conventions given that terrorists exist for only one reason, to kill whomever they can.
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Where are all those who think that the terrorists are covered by the Geneva Convention??????
     
  3. historyb

    historyb
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    No they are not covered, they should all be shot
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    In a less politically correct environment they would have been, shot that is!
     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is my understanding, we agreed to the convention so any enemy combatant we detain should be covered. It doesn't matter if they agreed to it or not, we did.

    I see you are fairly interested in this topic OR. You might find this story interesting. It is about the divide in the Bush administration regarding the use of enhanced interrogations.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04detain.html?em

    In the end I believe the golden rule is right and we should treat people how we would want to be treated. In this case it would be treat their people how we would want our captive people treated. Though I know our people won't receive fair or humane treatment, that is no reason for us to lower our standards.
     
  6. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr

    We are fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who are the "parties to the conflict?" Obviously we;re not fighting ourselves. Who are we fighting? Notice that Article 4 doesn't require that the "parties to the conflict" belong to any given nation. In what sense are the detainees not protected under the Geneva Convention?
     
  7. historyb

    historyb
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    They belong to a cause, not a nation.
     
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like I said in my previous post, Article 4 talks about "parties to a conflict." It doesn't specify that a "party to a conflict" be a nation. Show me where it supports your conclusion.
     
  9. historyb

    historyb
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    The convention was for Nation to Nation, these idiots belong to no nation, fight for no Nation. They wear colors of no Nation, they are not a Nation. We are to kind to even put them in gitmo
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    READ ARTICLE 4 JC BEFORE YOU START MOUTHING OFF.

    (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.

    Surely you are not simple enough to argue that the terrorists conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    Furthermore, they have no uniform [Item b above]. Soldiers caught without a uniform in WWII were subject to being shot.
     
    #10 OldRegular, May 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2009
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Read Article 17 JC: "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status."

    If the prisoner does not provide: surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. Then he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.[/b][/b]

    How many prisoners at GTMO have provided the required information. None, because it does not exist!
     
    #11 OldRegular, May 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2009
  12. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    It isn't relevant. Article 4 says these prisoners are covered by the Geneva Convention. Are you claiming that if we fought China for instance and their soldiers didn't have a serial number they would not be covered?
     
  13. historyb

    historyb
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    You keep using nations, these idiots aren't fighting for a nation is that hard to understand.
     
  14. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You are wrong JC, just as usual. The Geneva Convention defines those covered as follows:[for the 3rd time]

    (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 GTMO detainees do not meet either item b or item d, and probably item c.
     
  15. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you mentally deficient? I'm arguing that the "terrorists" that were captured in war are covered by the Geneva convention. If they weren;t captured during war on whose laws were they captured? Ours of course. They why aren't they tried in our courts? That is unless the Bush administration didn't want them to tell the truth about 9/11.
     
  16. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Irrelevant. The Geneva convention says this>

    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    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.


    They only have to meet ONE of the requirements NOT AALL. Comprende?
     
  17. historyb

    historyb
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I guess you will join others in iggy land, I honestly don't know why you live a lie either you can be a Christian or a liberal, will you chose Christ? When you become smart by not supporting stupid things I will welcome you with open arms.
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    As usual JC you are wrong again and you claim to be an inginer! The Geneva Convention states:

    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    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, fulfil 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 prisoners have to fulfil all four conditions above to be covered by the Geneva Convention. The terrorists certainly do not meet the last three.

    Hoisted by your own petard!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
     
  19. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus' primary enemies were the leading conservatives of his day, the scribes and the pharisees. Quote me chapter and verse where it says a social liberal can't be a Christian. I am a theological conservative.
     
    #19 JustChristian, May 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2009
  20. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're still misinterpreting the document. The document says:

    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    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.

    One of the following 18 wheel guy.
     

Share This Page

Loading...