Here is "common article III"

[originalpckelly]

"Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 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;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict."

[ShortnFiery]

1. It's pretty CLEAR to me. Dear Leader feels the heat of impending

War Crimes trial despite "signing statements" galore? :shrug:

[truebrit71]

2. Hmmm, can you clarify that? Not for me...

...but apparently it isn't clear enough to the chimp in charge....

[no_hypocrisy]

3. * is bugged that the Geneva Convention can't be amended to

his taste, and he can't use a Signing Statement to nullify it.

[Kagemusha]

4. Uh, isn't amending it precisely what he's attempting to do?

Getting Congress to "define" what Article III means, thereby narrowing its meaning to create exceptions for Bush's purposes... thus allowing Bush to write an even more aggressive signing statement than that.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. One country cannot unilaterally amend an international treaty.

The other countries would have to sign on to make *'s proposal acceptable without fear of a trial for violations.

[MrCoffee]

6. Sure they can. How else would it be enforced?

International treaties are enforced by the signatories passing domestic legislation to make the international treaty domestic law.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. If you're correct, then what's the point of war crimes and the

International Tribune in the Hague? What was the point of the Nuremberg Trials? Couldn't Germany have "opted out" if the Geneva Convention was subject to being ignored? (Was the Geneva Convention in existence during WWII?)

[Kagemusha]

9. There isn't any point if the US doesn't want to enforce it.

Edit: As unfortunate as that may be, that's the bitter truth.

[MrCoffee]

12. Sad but true

The only way the Geneva Conventions have any practical meaning is for Congress to define, and some domestic judicial body (probably an Article I court) to try, offenses against it. International law falls flat on its face when it comes to enforcement.

Edited to add that the UN is the toothless tiger in this equation.

[Kagemusha]

8. There's no way US people will get tried in foreign countries for this.

It'd be treated as an act of war for god's sake. The only way for this to work in the real world is if the US enforces the treaty by itself.

And that's what Bush wants to wiggle out of. Hey, if Congress wants to sully the flag like that, it can do so, it has the power... to effectively amend it, for the US only, that is.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. He probably wants to add a clause

specifically stating that the practices of waterboarding, piling naked men on top of each other, scaring them with dogs, making them stand on a box with electrodes attached and a hood over their head, and buggering them with glo-sticks do not constitute "humiliating and degrading treatment."

[gratuitous]

11. If there's any part not "clear" to Mr. Bush

I'd be happy to explain it to the little pischer, complete with examples and demonstrations just so he doesn't miss the point.