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

[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.