Slashdot Mirror

Something tells me you should actually read the text of the Geneva Conventions the US has singed. Hint: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

One reason Al-Queda isn't being given certain protections is that they do nothing to "sufficiently distinguish" themselves from civilians as required, among other things. They are not classified as guerillas, military or anything else. As such, it is not required to declare them as "Prisoners of War".

While I generally am against torture, recognizing that you can get anyone to say anything under torture, my definition of torture is probably different from that of Amnesty Int., et al.

But let's review exactly what the Geneva Convention says about "combatant status" (from http://www.genevaconventions.org/). My reading here leads me to belive that few if any of the "detainees" are eligible for "combatant status", and are therefore not really protect by the Geneva Convention. So while decrying "torture" like being made to bark like a dog, bear in mind that journalists, humanitarian workers, and civilians are being totured and perhaps decapitated by those you want to label as "combatants".

combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

"we will learn that they were tortured in ways that violate a Convention that has served us well for more than half a century, and this will expose Mssrs Bush and Cheney to quite valid charges of War Crimes."

Say what you will, and I'm no export, but I have to consider the very Conventions you're supporting decry the status of those folks.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

Have you read the geneva conventions?

They are being granted the "rights" given under the geneva conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Conventi on to those who fight without uniform against civilian populations.

The "rights" of terrorists include the right to be killed like the barbarians they are.

Ok, let's get this straight. Go to the website:
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Read the conventions.
They are in remarkably clear english, almost free of legalese. There is nothing offensive in them, and they follow a perfectly sensible set of procedures that are thouroghly inoffensive. To put it simply, if by some strange chance you had to detain some people on your property you would follow these procedures out of common decency.

For god's sake, the Nazis followed the Geneva conventions for POWs, and we followed them with the Nazi POWs. The other part of the equation is that these are the conventions other countries follow with US POWs. If everything goes pear shaped in Iraq, do you want Sadr announcing that the Geneva Convnetions are "quaint documents".

Read the frigging founding documents (RTFFD), The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions all of them are in plain language, and all of them are common sense that has served us well for ages.

And the texts of the 4 conventions can be much more easily accessed here
Further, the phrase international humanitarian law is purely nonsense because international law only extends so far as nation states sign treaties between themselves.

The Geneva Convention gives us the right to exclude these battlefield combatants from its dictums. It's written right into the Geneva Convention itself. What don't you get about that?

For that standard to apply, you have to follow the rules. The detainees were not following the rules of warfare, so they don't get the protections. Jeez. Just read the darn thing!

As the abused prisoners were criminals, not POWs, the Geneva conventions don't apply. The soldiers were busted on the standard prisoner abuse rules.

Geneva Conventions

1. In order for the geneva conventions to apply, both parties have to be signatories.
2. Note that weapons aren't mentioned. The Hague Conventions cover this. *Note: Though the USA follows these conventions, the USA is not a signatory*. The main effect of the Hague is that we're not allowed to use expanding bullets. IE hollowpoints/softpoints aren't allowed if they're designed to expand. FMJ only. A hollowpoint design has been approved for use, but only because it's more accurate, and it's not an expanding hollowpoint (IE it doesn't expand any more than a FMJ on will).

Non-uniformed soldiers are not subject to the convention and are not required to be treated in accordance with it.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

"The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Article 44
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war , except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed."

Boxing is a sport.
So is war.

The participants in a boxing ring are fighting based on defined rules and are there of their own "free will". [scarequotes added.]
In war participants fight based on defined rules, and are there of their own "free will" -- non-participants (civilians, those not fighting of their own will) are excluded from the sport.

["Wait, what if there is a draft? In that case it's not the soldier's own free will!"
Yes it is. They could have chosen to sit it out in jail. Much as it is MY choice to work to work for minimum wage, even if the only other actions I'm capable of undertaking are resorting to crime and starving.

Also: But [Boxing] is a sport and a game, not a violent means of resolving conflict.
YES IT IS. If money exchanges hands in conjunction with the sport/game, then it is a means of resolving conflict -- between one party's material interests and another's.]