SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: cnyndwllr who wrote (134590)5/27/2004 2:39:31 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
<They are only entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention IF, and ONLY IF, their own government is a signatory to that convention. And, if I'm not mistaken...>

He is mistaken. States, not governments, sign the Geneva Convention (and all other treaties). This should be self-evident. When the U.S. changes from a Democratic to a Republican-run government, do all treaties become void? (No, not unless the Republican is GWB.)

So, to give the relevant example: most of the Disappeared currently in Guantanamo were Taliban soldiers. Afghanistan was, and is, a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Taliban was the government of the Nation of Afghanistan. The fact that the Taliban didn't (re-)sign the Geneva Conventions, or the fact that the U.S. did not recognise the Taliban, doesn't void the Treaty. Most of the people in Guantanamo (and elsewhere in the American Gulag) are, by the clear wording of the Geneva Conventions, entitled to POW status.

See
Message 18673637
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext