I don't see where the any one of these criteria is in the Geneva conventions you posted
Here:
-------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Convention re Treatment of POWs:
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.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
unhchr.ch
---------------------------------------------------
Here's the relavant section. The list of criteria (2a through 2d) should ALL be met not just any one of them.
Are you really finding this difficult to comprehend or are you deliberately wasting my time?
Persons defined under (1) OR (2) OR (3) OR (4) OR (5) OR (6) etc are covered by the Geneva convention. That is what the phrase "persons belonging to one of the following categories" means. I didn't paste them all but you can look them up at your convenience at the link I provided above.
So you feel prisoners of Guantanamo, most of whom were picked up while fighting US soldiers in Afghanistan, do not fit (2). That's fine. BUT SOME FIT (1) AND OTHERS FIT (3).
There is not much you can do about that. Except, of course, come back with another lame reply in the tune of "you are confused, they don't fit (2)" etc.
>>>Another point you have chosen to ignore is that the Geneva Convention states very clearly that "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. <<<
I don't see the grounds for doubt. So I don't consider this relevant.
How convenient.
Can you read? The Convention says if you are going to say these people are NOT POWs, they WILL enjoy POW privileges UNTIL a competent tribunal decides their cases one by one.
It does not say the tribunal is unnecessary if Mr Brumar of SI decides there is no doubt. LOL!
And of course, Iraqi soldiers met ALL the criteria listed below:
(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.
So clearly Iraqi soldiers captured are POW's
There you are talking only about (2). There are other numbers in the Convention as well, as I showed above. Try reading them.
Lastly, I'd like to express my resentment at your advocacy for the captured Al Qaida members at Guantanamo
And I resent that statement.
My "advocacy" is for THE POSSIBILITY that some of those people might have NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda, a point we will NEVER be clear on unless they have access to lawyers and courts.
Even you cannot have missed that the US turned loose quite a few of the Quantanamo detainees. Let's try to think for a minute - What does that MEAN? Answer: That not all detainees are Al-Qaeda.
That is my point. These people cannot be locked away forever just because YOU think they are terrorists. They have to be allowed to make their case. And for now, they have to be treated as POWs, as stated in the Geneva Convention that the US signed.
The fatwa Osama bin Ladin issued calling on Muslims to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can is well known. And the resulting religiously based commitment of these Al Qaida members to fulfill the fatwa is equally well known.
And that means what? That the US should forget all law? That because it is under attack by crazies, US should get crazy as well?
I am outraged that you are looking for legal loopholes to set these people free so they will be enabled to commit future attacks on my country and my people.
The Geneva Convention is NOT a legal loophole.
It has come into existence for a good reason. And the US has signed it. Now, it has to obey it.
Yes, US is under a new threat. No, that is not an excuse to disregard a treaty they have signed.
And no, that does not mean I am protecting terrorists who mean to cut your throat. We are debating on what the right thing to do is in the light of the Geneva Convention. |
