I REJECT your premise! Underlying assumptions in the torture debate

[BelgianMadCow]

I clearly hear three :

1) If you're an "unlawful combatant"* (or suspected of being one) your are a second grade person
2) If you are alien as opposed to a US citizen, you are a second grade person.
3) The military tribunals have to decide on habeas corpus in these instances because we are in a War.


I forcefully reject those premises!

* does someone have the definition of that? Including leftists using the internet as mentioned near the end of NIE release??

[sutz12]

1. We HOPE it only applies to "aliens"

Once the protections are taken away from "aliens" it's only a matter of time before it applies to citizens.

[BuyingThyme]

3. We already know it applies to Americans.

Padilla was already denied his rights. This just makes it legal.

[BelgianMadCow]

4. yes I know you do - and so would I - but I'm an alien,

and as a world citizen I am deeply offended by the differentiation.

So it's okay to to unto others what you would not to unto yourself? What an example...

Not directed at you, but had to get that off my chest.

[annabanana]

2. re: #2.... um

They don't have any language in there that exempts American citizens... There used to be, but it was stripped away in committee.

You are 100% right, either way. The Geneva Conventions were written to cover all of humankind, not just who we think are the "good guys" today.

on edit: *an enemy combatant is whoever the President SAYS he is.... (seriously)

[BelgianMadCow]

5. I read that too, but they are still holding the discussion based entirely

so far on the difference between alien and citizen.

So I don't follow.

[Poppyseedman]

6. Geneva Convention

Article 4

1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:<[br />
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

2. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

3. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_4

[BelgianMadCow]

7. yes, so how is it that unlawful combatants fall outside of these?

I have to read up in the C-Span thread, I got an answer on the definition there, will crosspost.

[Poppyseedman]

9. I don't see it in there either

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Unlawful combatants

Under this legislation, it is pretty much who Bush decides it is.

Once he says one is detained as an unlawful combatant, one has no right to take that or one's treatment to court.

It is a 21st Century version of a lettre de cachet. And to think that this is America, which was founded on good government precluded that kind of arbitrary judgment.

[BelgianMadCow]

10. More on the definition of enemy combatants from Solly Mack :

Yes, we know the difference according to the Administration between enemy combatants and prisoners of war. The Administration argues that Al Qaeda members don't qualify because they don't have these qualifications: (1) being under a responsible command; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002239.html

It is clearly a wordgame designed to be able to throw away ethical standards.

DUers better start wearing uniforms, then we all cannot be renditioned.

[Solly Mack]

11. and administration is lying with their deliberate confusion

"The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."

There are other international legal instruments outside the Geneva Conventions that also affect the treatment of persons during armed conflict -- and after the conflict. While some human rights standards can be derogated or limited during times of war or national emergency, other human rights standards continue to apply in full force at all times. Instruments relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty detainees include Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees is prohibited as a matter of customary law and treaty. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and which the United States ratified in 1992, provides that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Also in force at all times is the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the UN Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners to which the United States became a party in 1994."



http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm

and as I listen to the senate debate, there are members of the senate arguing for the military commission act of 2006 using Bush's exact same false premise...they too are deliberately trying to confuse the issue and maintain the lies

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Let's look at this

Yes, we know the difference according to the Administration between enemy combatants and prisoners of war. The Administration argues that Al Qaeda members don't qualify because they don't have these qualifications: (1) being under a responsible command; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Do US troops qualify?

Only two of the four critieria are met. These are the middle two.

It seems that as of today, US forces need no longer operate according to the laws and customs of war.

And American troops are not under responsible command. The Commander-in-Chief is G. W. Bush, the most irresponsible individual ever to occupy the White House.

[BelgianMadCow]

13. Very good point. It could be argued indeed

that 1 and 4 don't apply. The dissenting generals easily prove 1. Detainee torture, albeit under command of private companies and ordered by the civil leadership, prove 4. So very very sad.

Who in the Military in their right mind can support the Rs in this...

[BelgianMadCow]

14. kick