Bush announces that detainees will be given Geneva Convention protections

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JeffWartman, Sep 6, 2006.

  1. JeffWartman
    Offline

    JeffWartman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Ratings:
    +101
    Looks like President Bush finally has realized that torture doesn't work, but I still don't think he's obligated to give the POWs Geneva Convention protections.
     
  2. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,272
    Thanks Received:
    3,051
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,223
    Apparently theyr'e not POW's...
     
  3. JeffWartman
    Offline

    JeffWartman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Ratings:
    +101
    Did you read the title of the ABC article?

    "High-Value Detainees Will Be Given Prisoner-of-War Status"
     
  4. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,272
    Thanks Received:
    3,051
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,223
    Yes I did. And other than the title, that is the only place it is mentioned. No quotes from anybody from the admin...
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Prisoners of war are only entitled to Geneva Convention protections if they, too follow those guidelines. These men were ununiformed and deliberately targeted civilians. They deserve no protections, and only recieve the ones we're willing to give out. We could torture these guys to death, mutilate them, and then hang them up on worldwide television as a warning, and it wouldn't violate the Geneva Convention.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I thought the speech actually was a walk through of why these guys were NOT being held at Gitmo, until they had what could be gotten from them, which was substantial. Now the administration is kicking the mess to Congress:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDEzZGM4NjAwN2Y1NjU0MGY4ZWYxZWM5OTljMTI4NzY=

     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Yep, more:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008903
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    and one more:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/09/understanding_bushs_speech.html

     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You of course can provide evidence that Bush condoned and or used torture on any prisoners?

    Didn't think so.

    The detainees need to be classified, one way or the other. Criminals or POWs. Technically, they are not POWs as defined by the Geneva Convention as they belong to no uniformed army fighting as an army. They belong to criminal organizations using military weapons and tactics to murder innocent people.

    Problem with defining them as criminals, is THEN you loony-lefties want to give them legal rights afforded by the US Constitution to US citizens.

    Defining them as POWs and entitled to Geneva Convention rights keeps them int he hands of DoD, and away from civil courts. Wisest course of action I can see.

    Some liberal judge legislating from the bench would make a bigger martyr of Hassam Akim than him blowing himself up would, and probably award him damages and a new Caddy.
     
  10. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <blockquote>Article 1

    The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in <b><i><font color=red>all circumstances</font></b></i>. - (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

    "All circumstances" means just that. And since the US <i><b>IS</b></i> one of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, our governement is obligated to adhere to all provisions of the Geneva Conventions in all circumstances. Anything else is a violation of US treaty obligations under the the Conventions and thus a violation of federal law.
     

Share This Page