Hmmm...
dirges wrote:
Convention 4 is to protect civilians.
Convention 3 protects military personel.
The insurgents would fall under article 5 of convention 3. I say this since any person would logically presume any mistreatment of the prisoners using article 4 as an excuse would hold the tribunal and have the transcripts ready for international review, which none have been provided yet.
Quote:
Art. 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
If you know anyother classification for the prisoners please tell, since these are the only three that come to mind. But I will say if these prisoners are not protected why all the fuss over charging the guards.
Ok. All well and groovy. You quoted the section from the 3rd convention that defines a POW.
But lets look at the 4th convention, shall we?
First the broad catagory:
Quote:
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
There's more to that article. Mostly explaining that people who match other conventions (injured/sick, and PoWs), automatically fall under convention 4 until they're determined to gain a higher level of protection from one of the other conventions.
But then the exception comes:
Quote:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
What this is basically saying is that if someone would normally qualify as a non-military person (convention 4), but then engages in acts of spying or sabotage, that person can have his rights reduced if the reduction of those rights is deemed to be necessary for the security of the occupying power.
Um... This means that if you have someone who's already been caught spying or sabotaging you, and you suspect he has information (like who his buddies are), and you suspect that if you don't obtain that information that your occupying forces will be harmed (oh, like the military people that continue to die in Iraq each day), then you can torture, humiliate, and do pretty much anything else that you want/need to do to get that information.
Got it? This is the same catagory that the folks behing held in Guantanimo are in. It's the "unlawful combatant" that you've probably heard about. It is part of the conventions. It is an exception to the protection for civilians in an occupied territory.
I think the fact that insurgents continue to kill US soldiers in Iraq is enough prove that information gained from prisoners that match this status is necessary for the saftey of the occupying power.
Quote:
A couple of answers here, no where in the geneva convention have I been able to find a passage that gives any side permission to violate the conventions, not even by psy-ops.
Didn't read it very far did you?
So even if psy-ops are doing what is in the pictures shown, it is still torture in my interpretations. As far as me making the assumption that the guards tortured prisoners I do it on the basis that that the geneva convention says humiliation is torture. As far as the guards humiliating prisoners you even agree on that. Yes. I agree. However, as I stated waaaaay back in the beginning of this thread. We do not know the status of the prisoners in the pictures. We don't know the makeup of the pictures either. We don't know how they were used.
While I'm personally opposed to torture, the treatment we've seen so far (the pictures we know about) may be within the technical definitions allowed by the Geneva Conventions. Or they may not be. My point is that you nor I know enough of the specifics involved to determine that. We do not know if all the photos we've seen and all those we've just heard about are from the same group of people. We don't know what exactly is contained in those photos beyond some descriptions. We don't know how many of the "really bad" pictures there are in relation to the whole.
Like I stated earlier. For all we know, there are 990 photos that merely show prisoners in embarassing positions that fall well within that allowed under art 5 in convention 4 for the treatment of prisoners who have engaged in sying or sabotage, and maybe 10 that are violations of the conventions alltogether (either because they go well beyond what could reasonable be expect to be needed to obtain information, or the prisoners were not allowed to be subjected to any form of torture dued to their status).
That's all I'm saying. You don't know. I don't know. No one who's posted on this thread knows. Thus, while we can (and should!) certainly demand an investigation, we should not leap to conclusions and demand some sort of punative action before we allow the relevant legal systems to take effect. I don't see how that's an unreasonable position to take on this matter...
Edited, Tue Jun 8 18:08:54 2004 by gbaji