US detainees to get Geneva rights

I'd appreciate an easier use of pronouns. "You"... not all Americans "hate" the UN. :)

But, yes, I agree its someone ironical. Also, given that its predecessor, the League of Nations was also something that owed its birth to a US president.
 
.Shane. said:
I'd appreciate an easier use of pronouns. "You"... not all Americans "hate" the UN. :)

But, yes, I agree its someone ironical. Also, given that its predecessor, the League of Nations was also something that owed its birth to a US president.

This goes to show that US presidential action often does not represent american sentiment well, or as the case may be, goes directly against US sentiment.
 
Masquerouge said:
Worse than the average CFC poster? ;)

Seriously, I would love to be proven wrong, or confirmed, but I'm geniously curious as to why it appears that the majority of UN critics come from US soil.

The U.S. is incredibly f%*!!@%ing powerful. It could probably wage (conventional) war on half the world and kick ass.

An organization like the U.N. gets in the way of American interests... it gets in the way of a lot of countries' interests, but not too many countries could actually go against the will of the rest of the world and get away with it. The U.S. could.

I betcha that a lot of Americans who are against the U.N. simply have a "we're the most powerful nation on the earth, we should be telling people what to do, and not the other way around" mentality.

If England was the world's sole superpower I bet most of the anti-U.N. rhetoric would be coming from GB.
 
Tulkas12 said:
This goes to show that US presidential action often does not represent american sentiment well, or as the case may be, goes directly against US sentiment.

Well, that's true of many incidents in history, but I don't think this one supports your idea.

In the case of the UN creation, ~1946, I'd recon the public sentiment was very much in favor of it.

Ditto the League of Nations in ~1918, until, that is Wilson came home and turned the Senate negotiations into a FUBAR.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
"Costumes" between nations, FredLC? :lol:

I think you mean "customs". Costumes are what one dresses up in. :p

All right, it's a neologism. It's that the term I actually wanted to use, a custom, translates to portuguese, literally, as "costume". ;)
 
Didn't want to go through the whole post, so let's hope no one else posted this...

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

That's from the Geneva website. By that definition, the people in Guantanamo are not POWs. What rights, then, should they be afforded?
 
Tulkas12 said:
As far as I know most of international law has to do with rights to the see and anti-piracy peovisions. My point is still valid when the accusation that we broke international law is made. We broke international consensus not international law, and to say otherwise seems to be a fabrication of people's minds. Prove otherwise please.

No, you are VERY wrong at that - these are the tip of the iceberg. Most international legislation deals with tax issues, frontier issues, arbitration of conflicts, migration, commerce issues and, yes, peace and war provisions.

As for actual articles, I'll have to do a bit of reasearching. I'll do it in this weekend probably, as I can't do it at work and can't be arsed to do it when I get back home wanting a rest.

Regards :).
 
PrinceOfLeigh said:
Trials to follow then?
I'll need to reread the Conventions to be sure, but IIRC trials are not allowed except for crimes committed during detention.

So, no more tribunals allowing release; the detainees are there until the cessation of hostilities.

On the other hand, it is a good thing that the terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters will be allowing Red Cross inspection of their detention facilities. This DOES work both ways, doesn't it?
 
@ USA and UN:
Clearly a double standard and a cynical approach of all veto states to first delay or inhibit important declarations and then take the powerlessness of the UN as argument for solo-military campaigns (may it be US, or other veto states like Russia)

@Guantanamo prisoners:
Every prisoner has the right for a trial, if he didn´t have one, you cannit treat him as if he´s guilty. Some guys (someone pointed the 1000$ reward for a name problem, as well as the mixing up of names problem etc. out) saying some person might be a terrorist is no prove that someone is a terrorist

@ self defence and shooting of people:
It is ridiculous to say that shooting someone who is planning to make a bomb is self defense- only the reaction to an IMMIDIATE threat in which AT PRESENT PEOPLES LIVES ARE IN DANGER gives you the right to kill someone is-
so: Terrorist planning an assault: arrest: OK, shoot on sight: NOT Ok
Terrorist sitting in a truck having the finger on the red button of the bomb:
Shoot on sight OK



That is the concept of self defense, and not shooting anyone who might someday in future kill someone
 
I personally believe the Geneva conventions should only apply to BOTH sides or NEITHER.
 
Joker85 said:
I think the people being murdered and having their hands chopped off in Africa while the UN sat around debating it complained, until they were murdered.

but in many cases it was the US acting in the UN to stop intervention! Both in terms of committing troops or meeting funding obligations, the US is at least as guilty as other countries at obstructing humanitarian action.

Why is this the UN's fault, after all the UN is only as strong as its members' will?

It's like the town mayor compaining that the local council is impotent to stop drunkeness when he has refused to pay his local taxes and thus they can't fund the sheriff, and he keeps voting in favour of late opening for the half of the bars in Main Street owned by his mates whilst denouncing the others....

Don't get me wrong, pretty much everyone on the UN council exercises self-interest in voting, not just the US, which means decision are rarely reached simply because they are right. Sometimes a country will stick its head above the parapet and give the UN a moral lead (eg. the US in Bosnia, something for which the US got insufficient credit IMHO), but too rarely.

But the US is the only country that continually *****es about the organisation's lack of moral fibre at the same time - that's what drives me mad!
 
Gladi said:
Actually one them "admited" to be part of armed resistance ( he made it up for a letter to his girlfriend to make himself look better. From archives it is seen that Nazi truly believed it)
In which case he was a POW, and should have been taken away to a POW camp. The Nazi's were wrong to raze that village to the ground, and kill everyone there - I very much doubt they were all part of the armed resistence.

Could you please make your point here? I thought we were talking about the War on Terror, not WW2. I believe any discussion on WW2 would go in the "World History" forum.

warpus said:
Elrohir, you were advocating the execution, instead of the capture, of 'terrorists'.. ie. put them against a wall, shoot them in the head, execution-style.

That's why people are on your ass.
Didn't we establish that that was a "sick" and "cynical" joke?

FredLC said:
Ok, I'll elaborate later, but now, my plain question is: you admit that "murder is not murder", plain and simple, as you put it, but that there are cases in which murder is quite ok. Is that it?
Not quite. I would say that there is a difference between "murdering" someone and "killing" someone - don't laugh - murdering someone is always killing them, but killing them is not always murder. This is actually the dictionary definition:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Thus, it is murder to shoot someone because you want his wallet, or he keyed your car. On theo ther hand, I do not consider it immoral to kill someone who is trying to kill you. That is self-defense, and not murder.

Do you see what I am trying to say?
 
.Shane. said:
I'd appreciate an easier use of pronouns. "You"... not all Americans "hate" the UN. :)

And not all non-Americans love the UN too :)

.Shane. said:
But, yes, I agree its someone ironical. Also, given that its predecessor, the League of Nations was also something that owed its birth to a US president.

A lot of critics that are aimed at the UN are in fact the same critics that a powerful member of a given democratic nation could aim at his/her institutions: I have to obey to the wish of people weaker than me because they're the majority, I can not do justice and police people the way I want, I have to pay taxes that do not directly benefit me...
Being part of a democracy implies that even if you have the means to do whatever you want, you just can't, and you have to bow to the majority rule, even if you could wipe out everybody in the majority.
So why is it that people willingly accept democratic rules at the national level, but not at the world level? Why do these people find it okay for a citizen of a given country to be subject to the democractic rule of that country, yet reject the notion that their country should be subject to the democratic rule of the world?
 
Elrohir said:
Thus, it is murder to shoot someone because you want his wallet, or he keyed your car. On theo ther hand, I do not consider it immoral to kill someone who is trying to kill you. That is self-defense, and not murder.

Do you see what I am trying to say?
So Iraqis are justified in shooting at Americans? :confused:
 
nonconformist said:
So Iraqis are justified in shooting at Americans? :confused:
If Americans are sitting around gunning down civilians, then yes, that would be self-defense. Simply randomely attacking them just because you don't like Americans isn't justification, though.
 
Elrohir said:
If Americans are sitting around gunning down civilians, then yes, that would be self-defense. Simply randomely attacking them just because you don't like Americans isn't justification, though.
The Americans have invaded their country.
That's more than enough justification to kill Americamn soldiers on their soil.
 
nonconformist said:
The Americans have invaded their country.
That's more than enough justification to kill Americamn soldiers on their soil.
America invaded their country, to take down a despotic regime which we believed, at the time, to be actively plotting against us with WMD. After invading, we have proceeded to set up a democratic government, and are on the way to withdrawing all of our troops. Our troops generally behave themselves and do not molest the civilians. I believe there is a difference between that, and, say, Germany invading Poland for "lebensraum".
 
Elrohir said:
America invaded their country, to take down a despotic regime which we believed, at the time, to be actively plotting against us with WMD. After invading, we have proceeded to set up a democratic government, and are on the way to withdrawing all of our troops. Our troops generally behave themselves and do not molest the civilians. I believe there is a difference between that, and, say, Germany invading Poland for "lebensraum".

Though the difference is apparently lacking in the minds of the Iraqis, and perhaps the Poles.
 
Elrohir said:
America invaded their country, to take down a despotic regime which we believed, at the time, to be actively plotting against us with WMD. After invading, we have proceeded to set up a democratic government, and are on the way to withdrawing all of our troops. Our troops generally behave themselves and do not molest the civilians. I believe there is a difference between that, and, say, Germany invading Poland for "lebensraum".
Double standards, eh?

By the very nature of invasion, and war, the objective is to kill Iraqis who either support Saddam, are patriotic, or consider the Americans a greater evil than Saddam (of which there are a great many).
As such, are they not entitled (and, dare I say, encouraged?) to kill whoever dares to take the liberty to invade their homeland?

In any case, international law always sides with the invaded power, unless they provoked the invasion by proving a "real and imminent threat", which Iraq didn't, and hasn't to any country in recent times. It is natural, and even expected that a local populace will spontanoeusly take up arms, and organise a resistance, which is why the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV), allows it, and affords protection for anyone doing so, as does the 1977 protocol (which is irrelevant in this case).
 
Elrohir said:
Our troops generally behave themselves and do not molest the civilians. I believe there is a difference between that, and, say, Germany invading Poland for "lebensraum".
And I wanted to pick up on this.

The analogy comparing Iraq to Poland is moot-Poland was a conquest of ideology, and genocide.
A much more apt parallel, though still severely lacking, would be the German army in Western Europe-generally acting with a modicum of honour, and as a professional army, with isolated (in comparison with Nazi organs) exceptions.
In fact when the Gemrans invaded the channel Islands (Guernsey?), they were perfect gentlemen.
 
Back
Top Bottom