The Smoking Gun...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><font color=red>The Smoking Gun...</font></h1></center>

As referenced in Alberto Gonzales' memo of January 25 of 2002, on January 18 of 2002, George W. Bush declared that the Geneva Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan. For the first time in over a century, since the US was signatory to the Second Geneva convention in 1882, the US government has decided not to honor its obligations under the Conventions.

In 1956, the US signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention. And it was in 1996 that Congress passed the War Crimes Act. Thus, a "grave breach of the GC is a federal crime punishable by the imprisonment of the violator "for life or any term of years". The GC also states, in no unclear language that,

<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in <b>all</b> circumstances. - Article 1 (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

The upshot of this, and the <a href=http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3dab115d29dffdcac12563cd0041fa3d?OpenDocument>ICRC analysis</a> of Article 1 agrees, is that nations signatory to the Geneva Convention are bound by its provisions under any and all circumstances. There can be no valid reason for failure to respect any part of the Convention.

In denying Geneva Convention protections to Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners, and later to prisoners in Iraq, which falls under Article III of the Convention as an occupied territory, the Bush administration has, in essence if not in fact, sought to subvert the Geneva Convention. This is a violation of federal law under the War Crimes Act of 1996. Thus it behooves the Senate to call for a special prosecutor to investigate this matter and, if warranted, begin impeachment proceedings for George W. Bush et al. Any who had a hand in the formulation and implementation this policy, beginning with Alberto Gonzales, former Deputy Attorney General John Yoo and Special Counsel Robert J. Delahunty, should be brought before the bar to answer for their actions in this matter as well.

The smoking gun has been found. All that remains to be seen now, is whether anyone is possessed of the courage to use the evidence before us and bring a close to this sorry chapter in American history.
 
Please quote, in detail, the portion of the GC violated. Or are we just supposed to trust you?
 
freeandfun1 said:
Please quote, in detail, the portion of the GC violated. Or are we just supposed to trust you?

"The upshot of this, and the ICRC analysis of Article 1 agrees, is that nations signatory to the Geneva Convention are bound by its provisions under any and all circumstances. There can be no valid reason for failure to respect any part of the Convention."

And, don't forget, The War Crimes Act of 1996,
 
Bullypulpit said:
"The upshot of this, and the ICRC analysis of Article 1 agrees, is that nations signatory to the Geneva Convention are bound by its provisions under any and all circumstances. There can be no valid reason for failure to respect any part of the Convention."

And, don't forget, The War Crimes Act of 1996,

But which provision (convention) is being violated? Please enlighten us.

And please provide a detailed example. Not just hyberbole.
 
Hell bully, the title of the section you cite is:

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

If they do not belong to an Armed Force, it does not apply.

"The implementing of the present Convention shall be ensured by the Commanders-in-Chief of the belligerent armies, following the instructions of their respective Governments, and in accordance with the general principles set forth in this Convention."

There was no "state" in Afghanistan. There was just a rag-tag group of CRIMINALS.
 
Bullypulpit said:
"The upshot of this, and the ICRC analysis of Article 1 agrees, is that nations signatory to the Geneva Convention are bound by its provisions under any and all circumstances. There can be no valid reason for failure to respect any part of the Convention."

And, don't forget, The War Crimes Act of 1996,

Bully to deal with this you'd really need to be an international lawyer with military justice background. From what I can find, it really depends on whether or not the 'enemy' combatants are 'legal' or 'illegal.' Almost by definition, 'terrorists' are illegal, since they are not affiliated with a state.

But heck, I'm not a lawyer.
 
Kathianne said:
Bully to deal with this you'd really need to be an international lawyer with military justice background. From what I can find, it really depends on whether or not the 'enemy' combatants are 'legal' or 'illegal.' Almost by definition, 'terrorists' are illegal, since they are not affiliated with a state.

But heck, I'm not a lawyer.

I doubt very seriously that Bully gives a rat's ass about the Geneva Convention except in the context that here is another rock he can throw at the Bush administration.
 
Kathianne said:
Bully to deal with this you'd really need to be an international lawyer with military justice background. From what I can find, it really depends on whether or not the 'enemy' combatants are 'legal' or 'illegal.' Almost by definition, 'terrorists' are illegal, since they are not affiliated with a state.

But heck, I'm not a lawyer.

It can be so very simple.....just say they will apply and enforce that position.
 
Merlin1047 said:
I doubt very seriously that Bully gives a rat's ass about the Geneva Convention except in the context that here is another rock he can throw at the Bush administration.

As usual, you're wrong.
 
freeandfun1 said:
Hell bully, the title of the section you cite is:

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

If they do not belong to an Armed Force, it does not apply.



There was no "state" in Afghanistan. There was just a rag-tag group of CRIMINALS.

<blockquote> PART I


GENERAL PROVISIONS


Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.</blockquote>

As far as Afghanistan being a state, prior to 9/11 of Afghanistan, the Administration was involved in negotiations with the Taliban with regards to building an oil and natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan. One does not engage in such negotiations with "...a rag-tag group of CRIMINALS...".
 
sagegirl said:
It can be so very simple.....just say they will apply and enforce that position.


Which is what he has done. How can it be so difficult to understand that saying they don't have to apply isn't the same as saying that they are not going to be applied.

Bush has said repeatedly that these people are to be treated as POW and that the GC applies to them. This is the reason that people that went beyond the GC in the application are being prosecuted and convicted of crimes.
 
Article 4

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




The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.
 

Forum List

Back
Top