Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2039)	1/13/2003 6:52:50 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

What is it you don't understand? I'm not sure whether you are complaining only about some formalities not being followed Geneva Convention is NOT a "formality". Do you think a tribunal you approve of would decide to free detainees we are holding? Please tell me you actually understand what I am saying and this is a joke. A tribunal I approve of? How about a "competent tribunal" as mentioned in Geneva Convention? How about ANY tribunal??? There has been no such tribunal and there has been no verdict on POW status. That is a slight problem, don't you think? Here are some comments from International Commission of Jurists in Geneva: -------------------------------------- The US decision was also criticized by the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, an international non-governmental organization that works to support international law that advances human rights. "The decision by president Bush to apply the Third Geneva Convention to the conflict in Afghanistan but deny prisoner of war status to Guantanamo Bay detainees is incorrect in law," it said in a statement. "President Bush has said this convention is applicable. That application cannot be selective or partial," ICJ said highlighting the contents of a letter sent to US Secretary of State Colin Powell. It echoed the ICRC in stating that the convention "required" the conferral of prisoner of war status unless a "competent tribunal" decides otherwise. "Only a US court, and not the administration, has the legal authority to make such a determination," it added. The letter stated that the ICJ "does not understand the attitude taken by the US government" in relation to the Guantanamo detainees, but added it hoped "such attitude will be duly corrected". The ICJ said captured Taliban fighters were entitled to POW status as members of armed forces, irrespective of non-recognition of the Taliban authorities as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. "That same status may or may not be extended to Al Qaeda fighters but must be determined by a competent tribunal," it added. Under the Third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are not bound to answer questions beyond their name, rank, date of birth and serial number, the ICJ pointed out. But the organization added that nothing in the same convention would prevent US authorities from interrogating and prosecuting detainees in Guantanamo Bay for any alleged actions that amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity. dawn.com