If they're not going to be treated any differently, why in the world did they initially claim the Geneva convention doesn't apply? Was it just gratuitous? And why are they not fully applying it now? IT'S THE GENEVA CONVENTION! Since when did the US have a problem with the Geneva Conventions?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How in your mind does an argument that says the Geneva Conventions do not apply in this situation suddenly mean that the US has a problem with Geneva? That's not even remotely logical.
[quote]<strong>I don't think the prisoners were being tortured or abused. But legal status matters too. If the US openly ignores rules and treaties as basic as Geneva, what kind of clout do we have to ask others to follow human rights treaties, UN resolutions, etc.?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure legal status matters. That's why it's not a trivial issue to ask: Does the Geneva Convention even apply in the first place? Should it? But you are impatient with the question. You've bulled your way past it and simply insisted that the administration is wrong. The Gitmo prisoners did not abide by the laws or customs of war. If you masquerade as a civilian how can you claim to be a POW? The Taliban were not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. This is what Geneva says: "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties." The Taliban weren't even recognized by the U.N. as a legitimate government. They were basically considered to be a band of thugs who seized power. What's more the Gitmo detainees come from 25 different countries. To pretend that membership in a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) is the same as being a member of a nation's military is absurd. If a mafia "soldier" is arrested by the FBI is he too a POW? How about if you are a member of the Michigan militia?
I think what the administration has done by choosing to recognize those detainees who are Taliban as POWs is nothing more than P.R. It won't change their treatment but it will placate people like you. I don't think it was a good idea though.
If these people are POW's then they should be released (i don't believe they are IMO) according to the GC. But why would some people in this thread want them to be released? It boogles the mind.
<strong>If these people are POW's then they should be released (i don't believe they are IMO) according to the GC. But why would some people in this thread want them to be released? It boogles the mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The war is not over. You don't release POWs until it is. If these people are POW and we consider the war is over they will go back, regroup, and start all over again. If they are POWs they may never get out.
<strong>How in your mind does an argument that says the Geneva Conventions do not apply in this situation suddenly mean that the US has a problem with Geneva? That's not even remotely logical.
</strong><hr></blockquote>I think that coming up with an interpretation of it that's so bizarre that only after public pressure do they reverse it suggests that they don't respect it too much. Looking for contorted reasons to not apply it suggests they don't respect it too much.
Are you saying that they have utmost respect for the letter and spirit of the treaty, but just misunderstood it at first? That seems hard to believe. [quote]But you are impatient with the question. You've bulled your way past it and simply insisted that the administration is wrong.<hr></blockquote>You're suggesting that I haven't thought about or defended my position on this, but I think if you look at my previous posts on this topic you'll find that hard to back up. For several weeks now I've cited and linked to the Geneva convention itself as well as legal analyses and materials that would suggest that I have thought about it. Not as much as you, I'm sure.
If you read this thread, I've picked out things I disagree with about what Bush is doing, and other things I've defended him on. Some of you just defend absolutely everything he's done. So who is impatient with thinking about this stuff?
[quote]The Taliban were not a signatory to the Geneva Convention.<hr></blockquote>The Taliban themselves didn't sign it, but Afghanistan did, and apparently that's good enough for Bush. Ari Fleischer: "the president determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the convention." [quote]To pretend that membership in a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) is the same as being a member of a nation's military is absurd.<hr></blockquote>Al Qaeda is a trickier situation - if they're picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban, they should be treated as POWs, and then a tribunal should determine them otherwise. But if they're picked up in Morocco or the Sudan, then no, they're not POWs. Almost all of the Cuba detainees were picked up on the battlefield, I believe. [quote]I think what the administration has done by choosing to recognize those detainees who are Taliban as POWs is nothing more than P.R.<hr></blockquote>To be accurate, they've said the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban, but declared both Taliban and al Qaeda NOT to be POWs.
<strong>Al Qaeda is a trickier situation - if they're picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban, they should be treated as POWs, and then a tribunal should determine them otherwise. But if they're picked up in Morocco or the Sudan, then no, they're not POWs. Almost all of the Cuba detainees were picked up on the battlefield, I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. There's no doubt, in most rational peoples' minds, that the Al Qaeda terrorist did not comply with the GC. Therefor they are no POWs and not covered.
<strong>No. There's no doubt, in most rational peoples' minds, that the Al Qaeda terrorist did not comply with the GC. Therefor they are no POWs and not covered.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But how do you know they're Al Qaeda? That's the point - according to Geneva, a court is supposed to make that determination, not Rumsfeld, Bush, or Ashcroft.
That's like saying criminals should go to jail - of course, but the trick is how you determine that they're criminals. You want to do that in a manner that has legitimacy, so you have moral superiority over the bad guys.
"We can do whatever we want. Who's going to stop us? Screw the treaties, we're the US."
But the problem with that approach is that we lose a little bit of that moral standing and legitimacy every time we use it. I want to be absolutely morally superior to our enemies in every conceivable way. That's what should always distinguish us, in addition to the fact that we have the power to win.
I think that coming up with an interpretation of it that's so bizarre that only after public pressure do they reverse it suggests that they don't respect it too much... </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's so bizarre? Article 4 defines the conditions necessary for POW status:
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 Gitmo prisoners clearly didn't meet these conditions. Pretending they did doesn't have anything to do with respecting Geneva.
[quote]<strong>... The Taliban themselves didn't sign it, but Afghanistan did, and apparently that's good enough for Bush. Ari Fleischer: "the president determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the convention." </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why this latest move is a bad idea. It amounts to a retroactive recognition of the Taliban. When they were in power only 2 nations recognized the Taliban. Now we are going to act as though they were the rightful rulers of Afghanistan?
[quote]<strong>... according to Geneva, a court is supposed to make that determination, not Rumsfeld, Bush, or Ashcroft.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not. According to Article 5 a tribunal is necessary only "should any doubt arise." Just the fact that they had no uniforms should have settled the matter.
[quote]What is it that (you) like so much about civilian casualties?
It's a natural question, given (your) evident contempt for one of the purposes of the Geneva Convention: to deter un-uniformed soldiers from hiding among the civilian population - a practice that obviously makes it impossible for an attacking army to distinguish between legitimate targets and noncombatants.
In other words, the Geneva Convention seeks to protect innocent civilians by keeping soldiers in uniform, and by defining those combatants who don't wear uniforms as being outside the rules of warfare and undeserving of the privileges afforded to legitimate prisoners of war...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>What's so bizarre? Article 4 defines the conditions necessary for POW status:...</strong><hr></blockquote>POW status has not been changed. What he reversed was that we should even follow the GC at all in this case. That was bizarre. Bizarre enough even for them to reverse. [quote]When they were in power only 2 nations recognized the Taliban. Now we are going to act as though they were the rightful rulers of Afghanistan?<hr></blockquote>Yeah, and prominent Republicans said in Dec. 2000 that they wouldn't recognize Al Gore as the legitimate president if he had won the recount.
The question is whether we apply the GC to others, not whether others would apply them to us. We already know the human rights standards of the Taliban - we should accentuate the differences between us and them at every chance, not muddy the distinctions like this administration does.
People say "the Taliban wouldn't follow it." Wonderful - we're comparing ourselves to the Taliban. They wouldn't do it, so we shouldn't either? Hopefully we'll have standards a little higher than the Taliban's. [quote]No it's not. According to Article 5 a tribunal is necessary only "should any doubt arise." Just the fact that they had no uniforms should have settled the matter.<hr></blockquote>Of course - that's why I made the distinction between being picked up on a wartime battlefield in Afghanistan vs. elsewhere. On the battlefield there is doubt - in what way do the Taliban not fit those POW conditions you listed? All those conditions are debatable. The problem with getting into the debate is that other nations could very easily do the same to us - not all of our troops have uniforms or carry weapons openly. And of course the US is always accused of terrorism and war crimes.
Why give them any opening at all? Why don't we just stand up for these principles and move on? What would we lose if we applied the rules rather than looking for debatable interpretations to get out of applying them?
The most important thing here which is being ignored is that these prisoners are not being mistreated. They have a clean space to live, they have good food and many are gaining weight and they have the best medical care in the world. They are not being mistreated.
I am glad to don't be in charge of those prisoners especially for their future. what will do US with these people ? a very hard question : personnaly i have no answer.
Comments
[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: yablaka ]</p>
<strong>
If they're not going to be treated any differently, why in the world did they initially claim the Geneva convention doesn't apply? Was it just gratuitous? And why are they not fully applying it now? IT'S THE GENEVA CONVENTION! Since when did the US have a problem with the Geneva Conventions?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How in your mind does an argument that says the Geneva Conventions do not apply in this situation suddenly mean that the US has a problem with Geneva? That's not even remotely logical.
[quote]<strong>I don't think the prisoners were being tortured or abused. But legal status matters too. If the US openly ignores rules and treaties as basic as Geneva, what kind of clout do we have to ask others to follow human rights treaties, UN resolutions, etc.?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure legal status matters. That's why it's not a trivial issue to ask: Does the Geneva Convention even apply in the first place? Should it? But you are impatient with the question. You've bulled your way past it and simply insisted that the administration is wrong. The Gitmo prisoners did not abide by the laws or customs of war. If you masquerade as a civilian how can you claim to be a POW? The Taliban were not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. This is what Geneva says: "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties." The Taliban weren't even recognized by the U.N. as a legitimate government. They were basically considered to be a band of thugs who seized power. What's more the Gitmo detainees come from 25 different countries. To pretend that membership in a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) is the same as being a member of a nation's military is absurd. If a mafia "soldier" is arrested by the FBI is he too a POW? How about if you are a member of the Michigan militia?
I think what the administration has done by choosing to recognize those detainees who are Taliban as POWs is nothing more than P.R. It won't change their treatment but it will placate people like you. I don't think it was a good idea though.
<strong>If these people are POW's then they should be released (i don't believe they are IMO) according to the GC. But why would some people in this thread want them to be released? It boogles the mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The war is not over. You don't release POWs until it is. If these people are POW and we consider the war is over they will go back, regroup, and start all over again. If they are POWs they may never get out.
<strong>How in your mind does an argument that says the Geneva Conventions do not apply in this situation suddenly mean that the US has a problem with Geneva? That's not even remotely logical.
</strong><hr></blockquote>I think that coming up with an interpretation of it that's so bizarre that only after public pressure do they reverse it suggests that they don't respect it too much. Looking for contorted reasons to not apply it suggests they don't respect it too much.
Are you saying that they have utmost respect for the letter and spirit of the treaty, but just misunderstood it at first? That seems hard to believe. [quote]But you are impatient with the question. You've bulled your way past it and simply insisted that the administration is wrong.<hr></blockquote>You're suggesting that I haven't thought about or defended my position on this, but I think if you look at my previous posts on this topic you'll find that hard to back up. For several weeks now I've cited and linked to the Geneva convention itself as well as legal analyses and materials that would suggest that I have thought about it. Not as much as you, I'm sure.
If you read this thread, I've picked out things I disagree with about what Bush is doing, and other things I've defended him on. Some of you just defend absolutely everything he's done. So who is impatient with thinking about this stuff?
[quote]The Taliban were not a signatory to the Geneva Convention.<hr></blockquote>The Taliban themselves didn't sign it, but Afghanistan did, and apparently that's good enough for Bush. Ari Fleischer: "the president determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the convention." [quote]To pretend that membership in a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) is the same as being a member of a nation's military is absurd.<hr></blockquote>Al Qaeda is a trickier situation - if they're picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban, they should be treated as POWs, and then a tribunal should determine them otherwise. But if they're picked up in Morocco or the Sudan, then no, they're not POWs. Almost all of the Cuba detainees were picked up on the battlefield, I believe. [quote]I think what the administration has done by choosing to recognize those detainees who are Taliban as POWs is nothing more than P.R.<hr></blockquote>To be accurate, they've said the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban, but declared both Taliban and al Qaeda NOT to be POWs.
<strong>Al Qaeda is a trickier situation - if they're picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban, they should be treated as POWs, and then a tribunal should determine them otherwise. But if they're picked up in Morocco or the Sudan, then no, they're not POWs. Almost all of the Cuba detainees were picked up on the battlefield, I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. There's no doubt, in most rational peoples' minds, that the Al Qaeda terrorist did not comply with the GC. Therefor they are no POWs and not covered.
<strong>No. There's no doubt, in most rational peoples' minds, that the Al Qaeda terrorist did not comply with the GC. Therefor they are no POWs and not covered.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But how do you know they're Al Qaeda? That's the point - according to Geneva, a court is supposed to make that determination, not Rumsfeld, Bush, or Ashcroft.
That's like saying criminals should go to jail - of course, but the trick is how you determine that they're criminals. You want to do that in a manner that has legitimacy, so you have moral superiority over the bad guys.
"We can do whatever we want. Who's going to stop us? Screw the treaties, we're the US."
But the problem with that approach is that we lose a little bit of that moral standing and legitimacy every time we use it. I want to be absolutely morally superior to our enemies in every conceivable way. That's what should always distinguish us, in addition to the fact that we have the power to win.
<strong>
I think that coming up with an interpretation of it that's so bizarre that only after public pressure do they reverse it suggests that they don't respect it too much... </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's so bizarre? Article 4 defines the conditions necessary for POW status:
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 Gitmo prisoners clearly didn't meet these conditions. Pretending they did doesn't have anything to do with respecting Geneva.
[quote]<strong>... The Taliban themselves didn't sign it, but Afghanistan did, and apparently that's good enough for Bush. Ari Fleischer: "the president determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the convention." </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why this latest move is a bad idea. It amounts to a retroactive recognition of the Taliban. When they were in power only 2 nations recognized the Taliban. Now we are going to act as though they were the rightful rulers of Afghanistan?
[quote]<strong>... according to Geneva, a court is supposed to make that determination, not Rumsfeld, Bush, or Ashcroft.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not. According to Article 5 a tribunal is necessary only "should any doubt arise." Just the fact that they had no uniforms should have settled the matter.
To paraphrase a question Rich Lowry <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry012402.shtml"; target="_blank">asked recently</a>:
[quote]What is it that (you) like so much about civilian casualties?
It's a natural question, given (your) evident contempt for one of the purposes of the Geneva Convention: to deter un-uniformed soldiers from hiding among the civilian population - a practice that obviously makes it impossible for an attacking army to distinguish between legitimate targets and noncombatants.
In other words, the Geneva Convention seeks to protect innocent civilians by keeping soldiers in uniform, and by defining those combatants who don't wear uniforms as being outside the rules of warfare and undeserving of the privileges afforded to legitimate prisoners of war...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>What's so bizarre? Article 4 defines the conditions necessary for POW status:...</strong><hr></blockquote>POW status has not been changed. What he reversed was that we should even follow the GC at all in this case. That was bizarre. Bizarre enough even for them to reverse. [quote]When they were in power only 2 nations recognized the Taliban. Now we are going to act as though they were the rightful rulers of Afghanistan?<hr></blockquote>Yeah, and prominent Republicans said in Dec. 2000 that they wouldn't recognize Al Gore as the legitimate president if he had won the recount.
The question is whether we apply the GC to others, not whether others would apply them to us. We already know the human rights standards of the Taliban - we should accentuate the differences between us and them at every chance, not muddy the distinctions like this administration does.
People say "the Taliban wouldn't follow it." Wonderful - we're comparing ourselves to the Taliban. They wouldn't do it, so we shouldn't either? Hopefully we'll have standards a little higher than the Taliban's. [quote]No it's not. According to Article 5 a tribunal is necessary only "should any doubt arise." Just the fact that they had no uniforms should have settled the matter.<hr></blockquote>Of course - that's why I made the distinction between being picked up on a wartime battlefield in Afghanistan vs. elsewhere. On the battlefield there is doubt - in what way do the Taliban not fit those POW conditions you listed? All those conditions are debatable. The problem with getting into the debate is that other nations could very easily do the same to us - not all of our troops have uniforms or carry weapons openly. And of course the US is always accused of terrorism and war crimes.
Why give them any opening at all? Why don't we just stand up for these principles and move on? What would we lose if we applied the rules rather than looking for debatable interpretations to get out of applying them?