Comments on: Geneva applies http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:05:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Heartless Libertarian http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/comment-page-1/#comment-100848 Heartless Libertarian Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:29:48 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/#comment-100848 All Article 3 says is that you have to have a "competent tribunal" to declare a captured enemy to be a 'unlawful combatant.' As far as I can tell, the whole point of contention is what exactly constitutes said 'competent tribunal' and under what rules they conduct their business. Given the definitions later in the 4th Geneva Convention (either Article 4 or 5, I can't recall), it's pretty obvious that the BGs in Gitmo fail to meet the definition of a lawful combatant in that they (a) don't wear identifiable uniforms; and (b) don't act IAW the laws of war (ie, they deliberately attack civilians, hide behind same, and use things like hospitals and mosques to conduct combat operations.) All Article 3 says is that you have to have a “competent tribunal” to declare a captured enemy to be a ‘unlawful combatant.’

As far as I can tell, the whole point of contention is what exactly constitutes said ‘competent tribunal’ and under what rules they conduct their business.

Given the definitions later in the 4th Geneva Convention (either Article 4 or 5, I can’t recall), it’s pretty obvious that the BGs in Gitmo fail to meet the definition of a lawful combatant in that they (a) don’t wear identifiable uniforms; and (b) don’t act IAW the laws of war (ie, they deliberately attack civilians, hide behind same, and use things like hospitals and mosques to conduct combat operations.)

]]> By: trainer http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/comment-page-1/#comment-100616 trainer Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:08:05 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/#comment-100616 The law of unintended consequences: Why put the guys at the sharp end in jeopardy if we're going to treat these barbarians like solders and not be able to screw any intel out of them? Take fewer prisoners, have safer troopies, and smaller detainee populations. Problem solved. The law of unintended consequences:

Why put the guys at the sharp end in jeopardy if we’re going to treat these barbarians like solders and not be able to screw any intel out of them?

Take fewer prisoners, have safer troopies, and smaller detainee populations.

Problem solved.

]]> By: gattsuru http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/comment-page-1/#comment-100611 gattsuru Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:22:57 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/#comment-100611 Kinda interesting, was fairly certain that the Geneva Conventions required reprocicity, but go figure. Kinda interesting, was fairly certain that the Geneva Conventions required reprocicity, but go figure.

]]> By: tgirsch http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/comment-page-1/#comment-100604 tgirsch Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:15:59 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/#comment-100604 D'oh, stupid typos. D’oh, stupid typos.

]]> By: tgirsch http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/comment-page-1/#comment-100603 tgirsch Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:15:27 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/07/12/geneva_applies/#comment-100603 Well, given that the Geneva Conventions were entered into by Chester Arther, and ratified by the US Senate, as per the constitution, and given that all of the conventions except for two 1977 protocols have subsequently been ratified by the US, it's safe to say that that particular international law is binding on us. Specifically, the high court ruled that the panels would be in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (a treaty legally entered into by the US, and thus legally binding) and the UCMJ, a law passed by Congress, and thus legally binding. Therefore, your international and domestic laws. Well, given that the Geneva Conventions were entered into by Chester Arther, and ratified by the US Senate, as per the constitution, and given that all of the conventions except for two 1977 protocols have subsequently been ratified by the US, it’s safe to say that that particular international law is binding on us.

Specifically, the high court ruled that the panels would be in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (a treaty legally entered into by the US, and thus legally binding) and the UCMJ, a law passed by Congress, and thus legally binding. Therefore, your international and domestic laws.

]]>