I'm getting tired of this argument particularly the niggling legalistic arguments
Truth hurts, doesn't it? Oh how happy you were before this "argument", when you had little idea about what Geneva Convention actually said, and could happily go abut expressing opinion about it :-)
I have made no "legalistic arguments". The Geneva Convention is fairly easy to read and understand. All I have done is post the relevant parts.
Perhaps you would like to ignore all these "niggling" articles that make up the Geneva Convention and go on believing the "convention" in your own head that consists of only Article 4 (2). That would certainly be convenient for you, but unfortunately would be quite incorrect.
I think the Geneva conventions on POW's were intended to cover soldiers in actual wars between countries, not people like terrorists or pirates
Let me remind you that the people captured in Afghanistan were NOT blowing up malls in the US nor pirating in the Pacific Ocean. They were fighting against US military. That means they were soldiering, rather than engaging in terrorism or piracy at the time of their capture.
my interpretation is wrong, then the Geneva conventions should be scrappped! No international treaty is worth endangering the country and its people.
LOL. You really think your country and its people are so very important that a REMOTE possibility of a hypothetical danger that giving Guantanamo people access to a military tribunal so that the innocent among them might be separated from the guilty, after TWO YEARS of incommunicado imprisonment, warrrants for scrapping of the Geneva Convention for POWs?
My, that is a fairly large illusion of self-importance there.
Personally, I think the life of one American, including your highness, is no more important than one 13-year old boy rotting in Guantanamo, possibly for the rest of your life, if your administration has its way.
Now what would non-Afghans be doing in Afghanistan during 2002?
Did you even READ the links I posted in the message you are replying to?
I'd like you answer a question. Do you want the detainees released or not?
They need to be given POW status, as described in the Geneva Convention NOW.
After a tribunal going over each of their cases, the unrelated poor bastards who had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda should be free to go.
For the rest, who are found to be Al-Qaeda, I am sure the argument will be made that the "hostilities" between Al-Qaeda and US have not ceased, and hence it is not yet time to let them go (as clearly explained in Geneva Convention).
Still, for the rest of their imprisonment, they will continue to enjoy POW rights.
American security is secondary to international institutions and treaties to you. It is the opposite to me and to most Americans. I am more than willing to scrap the Geneva convention and any and every other international treaty if they get in the way of our nation's security
The problem is that the world is not that simple. The minute US formally bows out of the Geneva Convention, US soldiers captured anywhere will be used as experimental toys for torture. Or be the bitch of the regiment. You might not be wise enough to realize that a remote possibility that according prisoners POW rights might somehow endanger the mighty American nation. But it looks like your Administration recognizes that there is a more scary danger to US soldiers stationed across the globe. Americans need the protection of the Geneva Convention, especially as their soldiers are scattered pretty much everywhere, in bases or even hot zones.
Besides, here's food for thought: When you sign something like the Geneva Convention, it is not to obey it only when it is convenient to you. |
