George "Incomprehensible" Bush

[waider]

Just saw footage of Dubya being asked about the POWs. If there was any doubt in my mind of the inability of the man to put two words together in a coherent fashion, it's gone now. Dear god. I almost felt SORRY for him. "For the love of GOD, Montressor, take him off! find someone who can even say "no comment" to talk to the press instead!"

Also, POWs on TV vs. Guantanamo Bay. I guess US soldiers aren't "enemy combatants" and are thus covered by the Geneva Convention.

Comments

[soul4rent.livejournal.com]

What sections of the Geneva convention are being violated re: Guantanamo Bay prisoners?

[waider.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

Let's see.

Article 3, section 1 (d); possibly (a) depending on how you read the recent reports of blunt trauma death

Article 13; what little camera footage has been seen of Camp X-Ray didn't look particularly humane, particularly the condition in which the prisoners, sorry, combatants were transferred there. Camp Delta is allegedly an improvement, but since getting information - proof in either direction, if you will - is pretty tricky, it's hard to find out for certain.

Article 14; specifically, Camp Delta detainees get a mere two 15-minute exercise breaks per week. For the rest of the time they are either confined to their cells or subjected to questioning.

Article 17; if the Pentagon's own claims are to be belived, the prisoners have been questioned on far more than their name, rank and number.

Article 18; all the residents of X-Ray and Delta have been stripped of all their belongings including their clothes.

Article 20; see above regarding my comment on the prisoners' transfer to X-Ray

Article 21; I think it's safe to say that getting out of your cell for 30 minutes a week counts as "close confinement"

Article 25, although within reason I guess it's intended to cover POWs being held in a captured warzone as opposed to home soil. Not that article 25 makes that distinction, mind you.

Article 38; again, the 30 minutes of exercise per week is hardly sufficient.

Article 87; again relating to the fact that everyone's been forced to wear one of those cosy orange jumpsuits (see last para); there are several articles in the 39-86 range which may also cover this.

Article 125; the prisoners are allowed no visitors of any sort. However, I'm sure the phrasing indicating that the US can bend this rule in the interests of security would excuse non-compliance.

Artilce 126; no-one's being allowed independantly check on the status of Delta, nor was anyone allowed examine X-Ray.

Article 130; certain of the above constitute "grave breaches" under this article.

Article 131; calling them "enemy combatants" doesn't excuse you from upholding the convention.

I've skipped entire sections here where it's not possible to determine if the relevant part of the Convention is being upheld or not. The section on finances is one which I'd be VERY surprised to discover is being upheld by either the US or the Iraqis.

Hope that clears up the issue for you.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

The US refuses to declare these as "Prisoners of War", and therefore exempt from the Geneva Convention. (I forget what the official term is; when they're mentioned at all in the news they're usually 'detainees'.)

This was the source of some controversy within the government, as I recall; military brass were concerned the precedent would lead future war enemies to deny that U.S. captured were P.O.Ws.

[waider.livejournal.com]

That's why I mentioned article 131:

Article 131

No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

Of course, that's my reading of this article. I've not determined if the presence of a war guarantees that capturing the opposition makes them prisoners of war, but that certainly seems to be the implication (may even be explicitly stated, and I missed it) and also certainly seems to be the way everyone else plays this silly game.

So if that's the case, you get a choice; either the incursion into Afghanistan was a war, in which case these people are prisoners of war and nothing the US says can change that; or it wasn't a war, which makes it an illegal breach of a soverign nation by the US.

But none of this really matters, because the guys with the biggest guns make the rules and right now that happens to be the US.

[waider.livejournal.com]

Article 4 defines prisoners of war.

Article 4, item 6 suggests that anyone who takes up weapons in defense of their country, uniformed or not, is still a prisoner of war if captured.

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.

Of course, I can see loopholes in this. There's the "non-occupied territory" bt, and there's the "carrying arms openly" bit, and there's the "laws and customs of war" bit. So what do I know? The US may be perfectly correct in its holding and treatment of the prisoners at Delta.