| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| 4th Geneva Convention: Protection of Civilian Persons in Wartime |
| 2004-05-26 |
| Some excerpts relevant to our discussions about US treatment of prisoners in Iraq: Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. .... Article 5: Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. ... |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #7 Mike, I stand corrected. The Geneva Convention does cover civilians and spies cannot be summarily executed. I still think that the conclusion to the TCS article that I posted yesterday is cuts to the nitty-gritty of the issue: The US government should clearly advertise as strict policy that it will not provide Geneva protection to any combatant who does not follow Article 4A2a-d, whether they are in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. Combatants across the world need to know in advance that if they do not adhere by Article 4A2a-d there will be negative consequences far beyond those of the captured professional soldier. Above all else, the unlawful combatants in al Qaeda and countless terrorist clans around the globe need to fear capture. There should be no reward of equal protection for unlawful combatants. Doing so only sends them a message that their tactics are legitimate. Backing up your argument with factual information is quite uncommon - and admirable. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-26 11:27:03 PM |
| #6 We have recently learned from WH Counsel Albert Gonzales that Convention IV indeed gives "civilian" thugs and cut throats (ie. terrorists in training) like Fedayeen Saddam, Amn Al-Khas, Ashbal Saddam, and Al Quds, et al sacred POW protections because of an international convention that was signed 50 years ago by 190 states, including Iraq. In the intervening 50 years, Iraq had evolved into a "terrorist state" and in fact had formally earned a spot on the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list several years ago, no to mention earning a "renegade" unofficial staus with the UN for failing to comply with countless resolutions. It is most unfortunate that President Bush had not formally declared Iraq a "failed state" before the invasion, so that the Geneva Convention rules could have been suspended in Gulf War II, or so I have read. It might have allowed our GI's to use unconventional, "torture lite" techniques to extract life-saving military intelligence. [Lucky we did not sign off on Protocols I and II in 1977, or state-less terrorists like Al Queda would have Geneva Convention protections too. Thank you, Ronald Reagan]. If you want to read more "Alice through the Looking Glass" interpretations of the sacred Geneva Convention[signed by hallowed UN nations, two thirds of which had in 1949 and continue to have in 2004 thugs, despots, dictators as leaders] works to our military's disadvantage, go to the website set up by Lt. Col.[retired] Fox and his Gulf War I American POW military colleagues, who were abused by the Iraqis, who won a judgment against the Iraqi government, but had the judgement blocked by our government, thereby preventing justice to be served re: Geneva Convention abuse of our own Gulf War I vets. I heard about this nonsense from Lt. Col. Fox being interviewed on the May 16 Barbara Simpson talk radio show . The Gulf War I American POW's website is www.stoppowtorture.org. Here's a bit of the nasty things that the peace loving Iraqis did to our uniformed military in Gulf War I : "...American prisoners of war have been tortured in war after war, including World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and through the more recent Gulf Wars. During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq under Saddam Hussein brutally tortured American POWs with savage beatings, starvation, electric shocks, whippings, burnings, drug injection, mock executions, threatened dismemberments, broken bones, shattered eardrums, deprivation of medical care, and confinement in filthy solitary cells without facilities. Because no contact with families was permitted, many of their loved ones did not know whether the POWs were alive or dead..." Tad bit worse than panties on the face, don't you think? Iraq violated the terms of the Geneva Convention starting Gulf War I and in Gulf War II horrific abuses of our POW's continued. Remember the GI's who were found in shallow graves with their throats slit and bodies mutilated? Or the female GI who was anally raped? Why our government feels it should comply with Geneva Convention IV to the letter of the law with regards to current Iraqi POW's is beyond my comprehension. P.S. #2 Unfortunately, regardless of President Bush declaring an end to major combat in Iraq one year ago or 2 days ago, WH counsel says Convention IV will always cover Iraqi "civilian" thugs and terrorists. Convention III covers uniformed Republican Guard. On the Bill O'Reilly show last night, I heard a Mr. Roth from Human Rights Watch claiming that even Al Queda and Taliban should be covered as "civilians" under Convention IV. Watch for a push on the front. The ACLU has been posturing on that issue. Stay tuned, folks. Hopefully, because we did not sign off on Geneva Conventions Protocols I and II in 1977, state-less terrorists do not have Geneva Convention protections. Thank you, Ronald Reagan! |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-26 12:58:10 PM |
| #5 One of the problems with the Internet Raj, is that you don't get to hear the tone of my voice, if you get my drift. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-05-26 12:57:31 PM |
| #4 how about conniving and lawyer? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-26 12:56:35 PM |
| #3 I mean they're smart guys. A lot of them are lawyers. Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine. Smart and lawyer don't necessarily belong in adjacent sentences. |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-26 12:44:33 PM |
| #2 Do you want to really know why the Dems and the rest of the tranzi riff raff were so pissed about Bush's declaration of the end of major combat ops? I mean they're smart guys. A lot of them are lawyers. The knew that no more combat ops mean no more Geneva Convention protections for "freedom fighters." The US still has obligations as the "occupying power," but anyone caught after the end of combat ops is a criminal, whether he's wearing a uniform or not. No Red Thingy visits. No obligation to release them at the end of hostilities. The Dems knew that. So ask yourself, whose side are the Democrats on? |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-05-26 11:44:08 AM |
| #1 4. The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offence and shall not be carried out on pregnant women or mothers of young children. |
| Posted by: rich woods 2004-05-26 9:19:04 AM |