A Way Out Of A Dilema For Reasonable People

About: common article 3 of the geneva conventions

Bush says that Common Articel 3 is vague.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; ...

I agree with him it is vague. But, as the three rennaged GOP senitors have observed, we cannot redefine the Geneva convention for fear of other nations redefining it as well according to their whims. There is, however, a way out of this dilema. Pusblish rules for out soldiers to follow which are not vague yet cannot be reasonably interperted as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular as humiliating and degrading treatment.

Comments

Mark de LA says
Congress is chicken - it needs a law! 99 lawyers will argue everything from not reading them their rights on the battle field to the color of their jump suits.

Seth says

M 2006-09-19 13:58:01 4457

Congress is chicken - it needs a law!

The supreme court has required this law.

Mark de LA says

M 2006-09-19 13:58:01 4457

Congress is chicken - it needs a law! 99 lawyers will argue everything from not reading them their rights on the battle field to the color of their jump suits.

FUCK the other nations! Most of our enemies would just kill us! As culture has told us moslems have a whole different idea about what is humiliating & degrading. For example how they treat their women is humiliating & degrading to me & an outrage on personal dignity. ... go figure

- Arrest them all!

Mark de LA says

This is all just an election snowjob. McCain is posturing for the 2008 presidency. It's a good year to be against Bush. One side is saying we cant redefine the Geneva Conventions. The other side is saying What the fuck is the Geneva Convention saying? We are not subject to the world court! We are subject to our treaties. The world court doesn't seem to have any teeth or balls. Darfur ? Rwanda ? anyone ?

Seth says

M 2006-09-19 14:12:57 4457

We are not subject to the world court! We are subject to our treaties.

We are a signature to the Geneva conventions. It is the law of the land.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-19 14:15:01 4457

M 2006-09-19 14:12:57 4457

We are not subject to the world court! We are subject to our treaties.

We are a signature to the Geneva conventions. It is the law of the land.

That's basically what I said - it is a treaty.

Mark de LA says
Who do you think would enforce the Geneva Conventions ? Who would be the judge? IMHO the Supreme Court over stepped it's jurisdiction. It invaded the Executive Department's perrogatives. The geneva conventions doesnt say anything about terrorists. THere are rules to qualify people as prisoners of war. It's the old story already been hashed around in the last few years.

Seth says

M 2006-09-19 14:37:07 4457

Who do you think would enforce the Geneva Conventions ? Who would be the judge?

These are constituted from time to time by International bodies, usually the UN.

source: IMHO the Supreme Court over stepped it's jurisdiction.

We have here a case where your opinion is irrelivant. The US Supreme Court has the last say on all matters of this sort.

Seth says

M 2006-09-19 14:17:36 4457

We did not sign on to the world court.

So what? What has the "world court" have to do with this? The US Supreme Court has ruled that the tribunals are illegal because they do not comply with the Geneva Conventions. The Congress is drafting a law to constitute tribuanls which will be in compliance with the Geneva Convention. Common Article 3 is the only pertinant thing here.

Seth says

M 2006-09-19 16:46:08 4457

seth 2006-09-19 14:45:37 4457

M 2006-09-19 14:37:07 4457

Who do you think would enforce the Geneva Conventions ? Who would be the judge?

These are constituted from time to time by International bodies, usually the UN.

source: IMHO the Supreme Court over stepped it's jurisdiction.

We have here a case where your opinion is irrelivant. The US Supreme Court has the last say on all matters of this sort.

We'll see. Suppose Congress fails to act then what? Release all the prisoners in Gitmo ?

I doubt seriously that it will come to that. Certainly reasonable people can write a reasonable law that will permit a just persecution of these prisoners.

Seth says

M 2006-09-19 17:26:42 4457

Read article 4 & notice who is a prisoner of war.

I don't know. Perhaps i was pointing to the wrong place. I fixed it. If you have a point, please make it ... no need for guessing games here.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-19 19:25:20 4457

M 2006-09-19 17:26:42 4457

Read article 4 & notice who is a prisoner of war.

I don't know. Perhaps i was pointing to the wrong place. I fixed it. If you have a point, please make it ... no need for guessing games here.

The point was that if you read the 4th article you will know that the terrorists don't qualify under the Geneva Convention- read it you might find out something new. Your link was good - just had to read down to the next paragraph.

word nazi says

seth 2006-09-19 19:27:44 4457

- snip - snip -

I doubt seriously that it will come to that. Certainly reasonable people can write a reasonable law that will permit a just persecution of these prisoners.

bold is my emphasis. I would hope that the US does not persecute any of these prisoners.

From the online dictionary:

3.a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.

Seth says

M 2006-09-19 21:29:33 4457

seth 2006-09-19 19:25:20 4457

M 2006-09-19 17:26:42 4457

Read article 4 & notice who is a prisoner of war.

I don't know. Perhaps i was pointing to the wrong place. I fixed it. If you have a point, please make it ... no need for guessing games here.

Well the Surpeme Court disagrees with you. If it ok with you, i will go with their interpertation.

word nazi says

seth 2006-09-19 22:02:36 4457 -snip-

Well the Surpeme Court disagrees with you. If it ok with you, i will go with their interpertation.

We shall see if it is settled law or not! The idea that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law, while appealing to some, wasn't written into the constitution per se. We can argue this somewhere else at another time. It was argued on talk radio & the blogs for a while during the appointment confirmation of the chief justice John Roberts. Something to do with the Dred Scot decision in 1857.
If another 9-11 comes about as is suggested here

some people with their heads up their ass perhaps will pluck them out to see the light and remember that protecting this country from terrorism is not just a nice experiment in social engineering & the law! Maybe they will remember what they raised their hands & swore to defend!

Seth says
Apparently yesterday i anticipated what is being reported today

source: NYT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 Seeking a deal with Senate Republicans on the rules governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects, the White House has dropped its insistence on redefining the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions, members of Congress and aides said Tuesday.

Hopefully the exact text of this will come to our attention when the bill is actually passed and signed.

A Way Out Of A Dilema For Reasonable People

About: common article 3 of the geneva conventions

Tags

Comments

See Also