The Geneva convention - some tv program said...

[Invader Zim]

some tv program said that the usa has broken every clause of it at least twice, could anyone provide source info.

[chamo]

Here is a section from a Guardian article on the treatment of afghan prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, read the source as it also includes some of what the US military let the Northern Alliance and US soldiers themselves do to prisoners in Afghanistan.

"His [Rumsfeld] prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery."


Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html)

[mentalbunny]

The US is at it again, the pot calling the kettle black, makes me sick.

Can we have a link to the Geneva convention(s) please, I've never read it and only have a faint idea of what it consists of.

[Pete]

1863 Original (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/1548c3c0c113ffdfc125641a0059c537?OpenDocument)

1949 addition to orignal treaty (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/d67c3971bcff1c10c125641e0052b545?OpenDocument)

1977 addition (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/d67c3971bcff1c10c125641e0052b545?OpenDocument)

A bunch of the Various conventions from the 1800's on (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/warfare.html)

The Geneva Convention, Relatvie to POW (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Another 1949 Treaty (http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html)

American Violations in Afganistan (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/pows-d07.shtml)

How Bush is in Violation (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059513)

American Misquotes Geneva for there own Benifit (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm)

Why it is Legitimate for Israel to Violate the Convention (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407009.htm)

More on Israel (http://www.adl.org/israel/israel_geneva.asp)

Ok that should be enough. I have tons more links I could give.

[Hampton]

http://www.raisethefist.com/news/wire/-----79397rumsfield.jpg

[mentalbunny]

Thanks for the link and the pics. I think this thread deserves to be stickied.

[Wolfie]

Dangerous times comrades, dangerous times.

[Anonymous]

The US claims that those held in Cuba are not conventional POWs and as such can be treated in any way they want. Although this does seem to contradict this war on terrorists thingy.

[Anarcho]

The captives shown in all of those photos are not in violation of the Geneva Conventions, as they are not recognizable.

The US says that the prisoners are being provided adequate food and mess facilities (proven, else there wouldn't be press about 'hunger strikes' and such).

According to the Qu'ran, the only religious facilities needed are a piece of earth from which to pray. A Mosque is nice, but not required, from what I recall.

The problem with the clothing is a grey zone. The prisoners showed that they themselves were not following the Geneva Conventions, as they were resuming hostilities after giving a good faith surrender. They did so by smuggling in grenades in their voluminous clothing..... a serious risk.

Beyond that, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, nor a JAG officer.

[Resorte]

Great pics!!! Rumsfeld makes me sick

[chamo]

Quote: from Funky Monk on 11:23 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
The US claims that those held in Cuba are not conventional POWs and as such can be treated in any way they want. Although this does seem to contradict this war on terrorists thingy.


Yes, the US Bush Administration calls the "unlawful combatants" a term used loosley to describe people who they declared war on and also who surrendered to them! Also, look at the American soldiers who entered Iraq in an illegal invasion and let us decide who are the "unlawful combatants".

Let's hope someone has the balls to bring the U$ to justice for all the crimes it has commited.

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Quote: from Funky Monk on 11:23 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
The US claims that those held in Cuba are not conventional POWs and as such can be treated in any way they want. Although this does seem to contradict this war on terrorists thingy.


Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light.

[LeonardoDaVinci]

This is also an extract from the same Guardian article:

You would hesitate to describe these prisoners as lucky (referring to the Guantanamo bay prisoners), unless you knew what had happened to some of the other men captured by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. On November 21 2001, around 8,000 Taliban soldiers and Pashtun civilians surrendered at Konduz to the Northern Alliance commander, General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Many of them have never been seen again.

As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27. The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation, started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead.

The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared."

Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave sites".

It should not be necessary to point out that hospitality of this kind also contravenes the third Geneva convention, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", as well as extra-judicial execution. Donald Rumsfeld's department, assisted by a pliant media, has done all it can to suppress Jamie Doran's film, while General Dostum has begun to assassinate his witnesses.

It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.

[Pete]

Coalition violation of the Geneva Convention.

Since last Saturday an unidentified airforce has been dropping cluster bombs on villages near old Babylon. Those who where outside are either dead or did not see the planes, only white canisters falling from the sky. In one village alone atleast 200 people have been admitted to the college-hospital, of those 80% civilians. IN addition 61 other patients died from their wounds at the hospital. The death count of these atrocities only includes those admitted for care and how died as a result of injuries, many are still lieing where they died in the streets.

The use of cluster bombs against a civilian populaton was last done in Israel's seige of West Beruit over 20 years ago. It is considered a war crime to drop these on anything but purely military targets.

The coalition can not blame these on Iraq, since they have no airforce, as a result of the last 12 years of no-fly zones and uninterupted, although hidden, warfare. It is the coalition who massacred these people.

Source (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3383)

[Invader Zim]

American shit heads... (no offence any one)

[smoer]

let me just say this: amerika isnt a hair better then the terrorist and bush is a dictator

[immortal211]

the prisoners in G. Bay are fed up with being in custody do to the constant violations by the americans and british who have them facing down all day and constant interrogations by the hour. If you ask me and the man next to me this is a complete violation of the geneva convention>

[Organic Revolution]

bush said he would punish anyone who broke the geneva conventions rules. well mister bush.. it is time to turn the executioners hand onto u

[apathy maybe]

the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights.
Guantanamo Bay is not part of the US it is and remains part of Cuba which the US is illegally occuping. Various treaties say it is used in defence of Cuba etc. If the case was taken to the Cuban court I am sure that something would happen.

[Comrade H]

Interesting to note that the American treatment of PoWs is at times worse than the Nazi treatment of PoWs!!!

[Rastafari]

The terrorists must have read this before they did shit, because they seem to actually break every single one. Of course there is no excuse for the US to do the same, because we are a "civilized" country.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I have read and heard in several places how Bush picked his words very carefully when he declared victory in the imperialist war against Iraq. After flying onto the aircraft carrier in his big military flight jacket (funny, he went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard during the imperialist war in Vietnam), he was careful to only imply that the war was over. Otherwise, the Geneva Conventions would kick in over in Iraq, and we would not want that would we? The U.S. does not want international observers to see what is still going on there.

[s|eek]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 5 2003, 06:27 PM
I have read and heard in several places how Bush picked his words very carefully when he declared victory in the imperialist war against Iraq. After flying onto the aircraft carrier in his big military flight jacket (funny, he went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard during the imperialist war in Vietnam), he was careful to only imply that the war was over. Otherwise, the Geneva Conventions would kick in over in Iraq, and we would not want that would we? The U.S. does not want international observers to see what is still going on there.
No, my fellow comrade unfortunately that is not how it went . We would rather see Bush pick his words very carefully but does he ? They funny thing is when Bush went AWOL on aircraft carrier in his big so to speak "big military jacket" was not the way he planned it ..... I agree with you very much on the statement about that Geneva Conventions getting all fired up in Iraq . And yes they do not and i reapeat DO NOT want the U.S. international observers to see what is going on in there ; you are very well educated my young Padawann Learner !

[Marxist in Nebraska]

What do you mean exactly? I do not see where you are in disagreement?

[Viva_CHE_siempre]

Bush should be punished for his actions :angry: Does the Un not now about this?

[Viva_CHE_siempre]

Bush should be punished for this :angry: Does the UN even know about this?

[BOZG]

The UN is an imperialist organisation which promotes the interests of the US in 99.9% of the time. They're not going to do anything.

[kapitalistsvinya]

I know I'm asking for trouble posting this, but if anyone reads the POW section of the Geneva convention and does so honestly, it's clear that article 4.A.2 is intended to offer POW status to those who don't qualify for it under 4.A.1.

Why explicitly list four criteria for qualification here (4.A.2) and not list any specific criteria for article 4.A.1?

It's because it's implicitly assumed that any regular armed force (of 4.A.1 status) would already meet the criteria of (4.A.2)

4.A.2 was written to provide POW status to those, who although aren't part of the regular armed forces, are "close enough" that they should qualify.

In my opinion, since the Taliban soldiers can't even qualify under 4.A.2. then certiainly they don't qualify under 4.A.1. and to argue otherwise is just a twisted interpretation of the articles without regard to their intended purpose.

To me this is pretty obvious.

[Guerrilla22]

The US has been violating the Geneva Convention for years, this is nothing new. Remember Vietnam? Anyway the UN is basically helpless to do anything against the United States. The only thing the UN could do is indite some US leaders in the International Court of Justice, however even if this was a remote possibility, the US refuses to allow any US citizen to be tried in the ICJ.

[PRC-UTE]

The USA learned from the best, jolly old England.

I hope the Iraqis continue to kick some imperialist ass.

[caliban]

I think it's long since the time that people should be asking questions about the GC. The convention and its articles are ignored about as much as the UN is becoming ignored. For example. If you read the articles involving the use of 50 cal. munitions, you will see that they are banned for use against "people", being seen as a rather horrific way to be killed. Dig out your back issues of Time, and look for the article on the Israeli checkpoints set up around Palistinian areas. In the photos you will see a Barrett light 50 sitting on the sandbags. The Barrett fires a 50 cal. round. The Barrett is made in the US and exported to Israel( the production and export both being banned by the GC). Smith & Wesson, after a brief laps from the gun industry, are now back(with new financial backers) and to launch their "new" company they released a new 50 cal. pistol. The US was one of the last countries to sign the GC. And the reason they gave? They were worried that the wording allowed, or would allow, the arrest and prosecution of civil and military police officers if they used "chemical agents" to subdue a rioting crowd. The use of chem. or nerve agents being a tricky subject with the GC, the US wanted the wording changed before they would sign. But to be fair, the US is not the only country or body that bends the rules to suit the situation. The biggest problem with the GC is the same problem that the UN faces. Accountability and enforcement. Yes we all know who is doing what, but the amount of bullshit that one needs to swim in order to get things done is staggering and time consuming. For example, the hostage situation in Moscow when the nerve agents were used. A blatent GC violation, but where was the focus? "I wonder what they used?". We are all guilty of ignorance, but instead of using things like the GC to enforce the law, it's being used to cloud the process. :(

[cormacobear]

I'm certain most of the U.N.'s member states would like to hold the U.S. accountable for 200 years of horror. They simply lack the power to do so. The Veto needs to be taken out of the picture, and other countries need to pay a greater share of the U.N.'s upkeep.
Here are more examples of breech's of int.l law.
In 1945, at the initiative of the United States of America, the General Assembly of the United Nations affirmed unanimously “the Principles of International Law recognized by the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.” In 1950, the International Law Commission formulated the Principles of Nuremberg. #Yet in the last hundred years alone, in the opinion of myself and hundreds of experts in related fields, we have seen 19 presidents, their advisors, soldier and members of the American intelligence establishment act in clear violation of these laws unchecked by their citizens or the world. In particular we can point to Principal III; The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him of responsibility under international law., Principal IV; The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible for him. Principle VI; The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: a. Crimes against peace: (I) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances: (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (I). B. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population, of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. C. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation ant other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried out on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or war crime. In 1966 N. Vietnam brought to the world a massive list of violations by The United States against the country and it’s people.# To this day no U.S. citizen has ever stood trial for any war crime or related articles. The U.S. position toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) reveals a stark contrast between the long standing rhetorical commitment of the United States to these institutions.#