General Petraeus: US violated Geneva Conventions.....w/vid

[Buschb]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him

[superjames1992]

Do you all Libertarians care about the Geneva Convention, though? After all, you all do not believe that we should keep our entanglements in treaties and such to a bare minimum, so why do you all care if we violation the Geneva Convention or not?

[Guild-Sfire]

Some Pubs/cons will think Petraeus.......has betrayed them...their party..and their country.

In that order.

[Buschb]

Do you all Libertarians care about the Geneva Convention, though? After all, you all do not believe that we should keep our entanglements in treaties and such to a bare minimum, so why do you all care if we violation the Geneva Convention or not?

Have you heard that cool new song....Deflection?

[johnrocks]

Wow! It keeps getting better and better, or worse and worse,lol. I always felt like he was a stand up guy but like a good soldier follows orders.

[johnrocks]

Have you heard that cool new song....Deflection?

:))

[Hellsbane]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him



When a command officer in the US military is asked a specific question by a journalist during an interveiw, " which you can bet your sweet ass was approved all the way up the chain of command, even likely issisted upon by the very top ", would you expect him to answere in favor of the former CinC or the current one, " who can fire him "?

[Buschb]

Wow! It keeps getting better and better, or worse and worse,lol. I always felt like he was a stand up guy but like a good soldier follows orders.

I 2nd that...

He handles his business...and wants to do it by the rule of law

[Droog]

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...I thought terrorists were unlawful combatants and didn't fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which means we can do with them whateverthehell we please. :doh:

[Buschb]

When a command officer in the US military is asked a specific question by a journalist during an interveiw, " which you can bet your sweet ass was approved all the way up the chain of command, even likely issisted upon by the very top ", would you expect him to answere in favor of the former CinC or the current one, " who can fire him "?

I don't see it that way...but know what you are syaing

[Databyter]

Not even going to read in this thread, just want to say Petraeus is a moron.

If you read the Geneva Conventions it is clear to what and who they apply.

[Droog]

Not even going to read in this thread, just want to say Petraeus is a moron.

If you read the Geneva Conventions it is clear to what and who they apply.Without the GC, what rights does an unlawful combatant have? Any? If so, what is the standard?

[Hellsbane]

I don't see it that way...but know what you are syaing


Soldiers are political tools and subject to the whims of politicians. MacArthur was very honorable commander, but crossed the lines by being outspoken against the stratrigies of the political powers and paid the price. Patton was a very honorable commander, but crossed the lines by being outspoken about the stratigies of the political powers and paid the price. Command officers can not say what they want without fear of suffering the consequences, so, they will be good soldiers and say what they are told to say. The only time they are not so bound is when they are no longer in service.

[Buschb]

Soldiers are political tools and subject to the whims of politicians. MacArthur was very honorable commander, but crossed the lines by being outspoken against the stratrigies of the political powers and paid the price. Patton was a very honorable commander, but crossed the lines by being outspoken about the stratigies of the political powers and paid the price. Command officers can not say what they want without fear of suffering the consequences, so, they will be good soldiers and say what they are told to say. The only time they are not so bound is when they are no longer in service.

I hear ya....

But there's no way that Gitmo and waterboarding may be a recruitment tool like the General portrays?
Even when caught terrorist says that's the case

[Malikstein]

... i did not see in there what was violated nor what he BELIEVED was violated.
all i saw was "what he thought" was violated ...

[Databyter]

Without the GC, what rights does an unlawful combatant have? Any? If so, what is the standard?

Good question.

One thing is for sure though, it is not the geneva convention, and this general is a moron for saying that and making people think we broke our own rules.

He is just a newcoming political whore, probably run for the Senate or something.

[DaHa]

Without the GC, what rights does an unlawful combatant have? Any? If so, what is the standard?

I haven't been able to view the video, so there may be context I'm missing, but from the summary, the general does not refer specifically to the 'unlawful combatants' when talking about the Geneva Conventions (although, again from the summary, he does specifically mention Guantanamo). In both Iraq and Afghanistan, at one point or another, US forces have faced regular troops, who are indeed covered. If I recall correctly, the Abu'Ghraib (spelling??) issue involved regular Iraqi military personnel for example.

And to those posters who felt that he said this because he wanted to protect his own job... I obviously don't know the man personally, but from what I've seen he is both decent and honorable, and has acquitted himself well in the field. I find implications that he is 'towing the corporate line' distasteful and disrespectful, and the comments appear to have been made simply because he has taken a position other that that which you believe in.

[Hellsbane]

I hear ya....

But there's no way that Gitmo and waterboarding may be a recruitment tool like the General portrays?
Even when caught terrorist says that's the case


Well, if there is a correlation, then it would stand to reason that the troops in our military would number in the 10,s of millions. If beheading videos arn't enough to get you off your ass and in a military uniform, phony drownings sure as hell wont. Fact is, criminals and insane people are going to do what they will do, they really dont require an excuse to be murderous *******s.

[Ninjacorpse]

I hear ya....

But there's no way that Gitmo and waterboarding may be a recruitment tool like the General portrays?
Even when caught terrorist says that's the case

Their are lots of things that could be recruiting tools.

[Buschb]

Well, if there is a correlation, then it would stand to reason that the troops in our military would number in the 10,s of millions. If beheading videos arn't enough to get you off your ass and in a military uniform, phony drownings sure as hell wont. Fact is, criminals and insane people are going to do what they will do, they really dont require an excuse to be murderous *******s.

point taken...but comparison between us an them won't work

[Hellsbane]

I haven't been able to view the video, so there may be context I'm missing, but from the summary, the general does not refer specifically to the 'unlawful combatants' when talking about the Geneva Conventions (although, again from the summary, he does specifically mention Guantanamo). In both Iraq and Afghanistan, at one point or another, US forces have faced regular troops, who are indeed covered. If I recall correctly, the Abu'Ghraib (spelling??) issue involved regular Iraqi military personnel for example.

And to those posters who felt that he said this because he wanted to protect his own job... I obviously don't know the man personally, but from what I've seen he is both decent and honorable, and has acquitted himself well in the field. I find implications that he is 'towing the corporate line' distasteful and disrespectful, and the comments appear to have been made simply because he has taken a position other that that which you believe in.


Sorry if it offends, but he is a soldier and will say what he is told to say. I doubt anything he said in that interveiw wasn't already addressed by the command structure well in advance. After he gets out of service and repeats what he said, then i will beleive it. Until then, its his carreer on the line. He either goes along or he gets the boot.

[Hellsbane]

point taken...but comparison between us an them won't work


Then the higher chain of command in this country needs to stop comparing us to them.

[Buschb]

Then the higher chain of command in this country needs to stop comparing us to them.

not sure what you imply

[Unaffiliated]

I've never had a problem with the general. When asked questions in the past he's given honest, logical answers. He strikes me as the kind of man that would retire before contradicting himself intentionally.

Or he could be playing the game. But, I don't think so.

[jwil59]

When a command officer in the US military is asked a specific question by a journalist during an interveiw, " which you can bet your sweet ass was approved all the way up the chain of command, even likely issisted upon by the very top ", would you expect him to answere in favor of the former CinC or the current one, " who can fire him "?

I think gen P has more integrity than that.

[Gengar]

So now ya Lefties like General Petraeus. :))

[jwil59]

Not even going to read in this thread, just want to say Petraeus is a moron.

If you read the Geneva Conventions it is clear to what and who they apply.

:rolleyes:

The man is an American hero.

he has served to keep you free for many many years, and you say this over politics. pathetic

I'm not sure the mods will like you calling him a moron either.

I say again, pathetic

[penner01]

I hear ya....

But there's no way that Gitmo and waterboarding may be a recruitment tool like the General portrays?
Even when caught terrorist says that's the caseI respect what the General feels - he's a professional, though his comments dissapoint me.

As for the waterboarding and gitmo........I am weary of those that hang on this as if we wouldn't be fighting terrorists if we didn't have them. Propagandists can make a recruitment tool out of anything. They say we are infidels by the way....you don't think attitudes on gays and abortion and other societal values can't be spun to be effective recruitment tools? You don't think our overall foreign policy can't be spun to be a recruitment tool. So we make a few of them so disgusted by what they believe to be the truth at gitmo that they want to fight us - it's not like there is some void there that waterboarding is helping them fill.

[Gengar]

Some Pubs/cons will think Petraeus.......has betrayed them...their party..and their country.

In that order.

Yeah... some "Pubs/cons" might even call him... General Betrayus!

[tobybear]

I hear ya....

But there's no way that Gitmo and waterboarding may be a recruitment tool like the General portrays?
Even when caught terrorist says that's the case

Exactly, because Islamic Nutjobs were perfectly content living in peace with the Great Satan until the Great Satan locked up some of their buddies and waterboarded them! :rolleyes:

[BasicGreatGuy]

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the current war at hand.

[jwil59]

So now ya Lefties like General Petraeus. :))

So now ya righties don't like General Petraeus :))

[penner01]

Sorry if it offends, but he is a soldier and will say what he is told to say. I doubt anything he said in that interveiw wasn't already addressed by the command structure well in advance. After he gets out of service and repeats what he said, then i will beleive it. Until then, its his carreer on the line. He either goes along or he gets the boot.He's a bright enough man to have avoided saying what he didn't want to say and I hardly think he was told what to say. His command knows his position and they let him on the interview. I'm really disappointed (although the full context would help) but this man doesn't strike me as anybody's lacky.

[penner01]

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the current war at hand.Exactly why the full context of the interview could be really helpful.

[orbitaldecay]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him

I think it's jumping the gun to state that Petraues was saying waterboarding and other enhanced interrogations were contrary to the Geneva Conventions. He wasn't even clear if he thought the Bush Administration were the ones responsible for the breaking Geneva.

[Gengar]

Waterboarding didn't bring us '93, OKC, Kenya, Tanzania, Bali, or the USS Cole.

But those attacks wouldn't have happened if we didn't waterboard 3 Jihadists!

[Antrel]

Petraeus is the man.

[orbitaldecay]

Pathetic post

A coward?? Again I say, pathetic

I reported the comment.

Calling military men traitors I think warrants it.

You may want to edit, IF by chance it's a violation.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I reported the comment.

Calling military men traitors I think warrants it.

You may want to edit, IF by chance it's a violation.

The general is not a protected entity on here. The poster did not say all troops are thus and thus. It was a crappy post to make to be sure.

[orbitaldecay]

The general is not a protected entity on here. The poster did not say all troops are thus and thus. It was a crappy post to make to be sure.

Well, he was a retread and was banned by Lee, so it matters not.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I wasn't promoting anything of the sort Lee. I said it was a crappy post. I merely stated my understanding of the rules.

[Buschb]

I've never had a problem with the general. When asked questions in the past he's given honest, logical answers. He strikes me as the kind of man that would retire before contradicting himself intentionally.

Or he could be playing the game. But, I don't think so.

that's all I'm saying...

As much as I don't like the war...This man seems proper..
And he's doing a good job

[Let Freedom Reign]

So now ya righties don't like General Petraeus :))
We base our judgement of people on their actions, past and present, not on pretty words meant to enhance their personal ideology, power or designed to diminish their personal feelings of inadequacy. Very interesting that when ..trayus was working for Bush; he sung he sang a very different tune. Now, he feels the heat or has been promised something he wants; and suddenly his entire story changes. We conservatives base our opinions of one's moral platitude on consistency, behavior and actions.

[BasicGreatGuy]

that's all I'm saying...

As much as I don't like the war...This man seems proper..
And he's doing a good job
He didn't explain how we ( the U.S. ) are supposedly violating the Geneva Convention. The U.S. military has not taken in P.O.W.'s in Iraq and Afghanistan, that I am aware of. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I hear ya....

But there's no way that Gitmo and waterboarding may be a recruitment tool like the General portrays?
Even when caught terrorist says that's the case

And who does saying that benefit most? You find it strange that a caught terrorist would say something negative about Gitmo - the one place on earth the terrorists fear?

[Antrel]

He didn't explain how we ( the U.S. ) are supposedly violating the Geneva Convention. The U.S. military has not taken in P.O.W.'s in Iraq and Afghanistan, that I am aware of. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.There are protections afforded to POW's, which are not afforded to unlawful combatants. However, there are standards of detention that all signatories are to adhere to, regardless of the legal status of their captives. Under the GC's, again devoid of legal status, captives are not to be tortured. If detainees are being tortured by any individual representing the United States, or any signatory nation for that matter, they are in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

[Let Freedom Reign]

Waterboarding didn't bring us '93, OKC, Kenya, Tanzania, Bali, or the USS Cole.

But those attacks wouldn't have happened if we didn't waterboard 3 Jihadists!

+ 3! LOL:clap::flag:

[Buschb]

If anyone has a problem with the OP take it up with the General...
All I said was I applaud him...

(from a philosophic stand point..regarding "inecentive")...He said Geneva Conventions and he's smarter than me

[penner01]

He didn't explain how we ( the U.S. ) are supposedly violating the Geneva Convention. The U.S. military has not taken in P.O.W.'s in Iraq and Afghanistan, that I am aware of. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.Actually, he didn't say we are. I finally got to watch the video and what I heard was "when we have". He was speaking historically, although depending on what one "wants to hear, it does sound like the same reference. He could have been referencing Abu Graib since he did reference that we have taken steps to atone for it.

He spoke against gitmo and against waterboarding but not in the same statement regarding GC. He's clearly not in favor of gitmo nor enhanced techniques but I think this is a wise general that was speaking sincerely. I personally regret he feels this way, but he was being honest. I still respect him.

[Gengar]

So now ya righties don't like General Petraeus :))

Now you lefties do. That's what's funny.

Whichever way the wind blows.

[BasicGreatGuy]

There are protections afforded to POW's, which are not afforded to unlawful combatants. However, there are standards of detention that all signatories are to adhere to, regardless of the legal status of their captives. Under the GC's, again devoid of legal status, captives are not to be tortured. If detainees are being tortured by any individual representing the United States, or any signatory nation for that matter, they are in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Let me make sure I got this straight. You are stating that regardless of who we are at war with, whether they play by the rules of the Geneva Convention or not, even if they are not P.O.W.'s, we are required by international law to not use such techniques on said combatants. Is this correct?

[penner01]

If anyone has a problem with the OP take it up with the General...
All I said was I applaud him...

(from a philosophic stand point..regarding "inecentive")...He said Geneva Conventions and he's smarter than meIt was a good OP for discussion - that coming from someone who didn't want to hear him say those things.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Actually, he didn't say we are. I finally got to watch the video and what I heard was "when we have". He was speaking historically, although depending on what one "wants to hear, it does sound like the same reference. He could have been referencing Abu Graib since he did reference that we have taken steps to atone for it.

He spoke against gitmo and against waterboarding but not in the same statement regarding GC. He's clearly not in favor of gitmo nor enhanced techniques but I think this is a wise general that was speaking sincerely. I personally regret he feels this way, but he was being honest. I still respect him.

I respect him even if I may disagree with him at times. I will watch the video again.

[Sun]

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists who don't wear a uniform.

[Antrel]

Let me make sure I got this straight. You are stating that regardless of who we are at war with, whether they play by the rules of the Geneva Convention or not, even if they are not P.O.W.'s, we are required by international law to not use such techniques on said combatants. Is this correct?That is correct. We have responsibilities as signatories that supersede the actions and responsibilities (or lack thereof) of our enemies.

[texashusker34]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him

What's the problem with him saying this? You haven't seen the small number of military personnel that have been arrested and jailed over breaking our rules? Soldiers aren't perfect and some are criminals just like normal society. When they do something against the UCMJ they are punished and removed from active duty. I see nothing that makes me think any less of this man. I see a comment at the end that he believes that what we're fighting for is RIGHT and he's dead on accurate. When we released the slaves, in no way is it tarnished by an ex-slave that committed a crime. It might be portrayed that way by some of the lunatics out there but the two have nothing to do with each other. A criminal committing an act in violation of our codes does not tarnish the sacrifice and efforts of the rest of our soldiers.

[Antrel]

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists who don't wear a uniform.But they apply to us as captors of said terrorists.

[Buschb]

It was a good OP for discussion - that coming from someone who didn't want to hear him say those things.

I'm not a military man...But I believe the General to be a man of his word...

In fact if your willing to die....it's quite possible you stand firm in your beliefs...regardless of distaste
It's a sad day when the warriors word is questioned

[tinydancer]

Their are lots of things that could be recruiting tools.

Like believing every jew should be dead on the planet? Hey what the heck.....


Edit to add: all one has to do is to read the Hamas Charter.

[texashusker34]

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists who don't wear a uniform.

I'm sorry but the Geneva Convention applies to all. We have the moral high ground. The clothes you choose have nothing to do with your status as a combatant. The fact that you're holding a gun and shooting at your enemy does that. As to the Geneva convention covering the folks in Cuba, someone show me where we are violating their rights according to the Geneva convention.

[jwil59]

I reported the comment.

Calling military men traitors I think warrants it.

You may want to edit, IF by chance it's a violation.

Lee deleted it for me :lol:

That's the first time I have ever had a post deleted to my knowledge.

[BasicGreatGuy]

That is correct. We have responsibilities as signatories that supersede the actions and responsibilities (or lack thereof) of our enemies.
For the record, I don't believe in torture. That being said, we are to go by the Constitution are we not? International law does not trump the Constitution. If the U.S. did violate part(s) of the Geneva Convention, who is going to report us? The enemies who are trying to kill us? Who would prosecute us? The U.N.? Screw them. Are we supposed to be reporting all that we do, to some international government authoritarian pencil pushing crew?

[jwil59]

I wasn't promoting anything of the sort Lee. I said it was a crappy post. I merely stated my understanding of the rules.

me too buddy........

I thought I had seen cases in the past where posters were slapped by the mods for calling military people cowards and such

[Buschb]

For the record, I don't believe in torture. That being said, we are to go by the Constitution are we not? International law does not trump the Constitution. If the U.S. did violate part(s) of the Geneva Convention, who is going to report us? The enemies who are trying to kill us? Who would prosecute us? The U.N.? Screw them. Are we supposed to be reporting all that we do, to some international government authoritarian pencil pushing crew?

indeed..it's a mess

[penner01]

I respect him even if I may disagree with him at times. I will watch the video again.Let us know if I got it wrong.

[penner01]

But they apply to us as captors of said terrorists.
We are fighting people that are not signatories of the Conventions.

[BasicGreatGuy]

indeed..it's a mess
It is a mess. This fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back, because you have to be political correct at home and abroad with people who are doing all they can to kill you, is very frustrating to see. This is the kind of crap that happens, when you try to nation build and fight a war a country at the same time.

[darknessesedge]

Some Pubs/cons will think Petraeus.......has betrayed them...their party..and their country.

In that order.

if the story is true, then I support what the Gen has said.

up until now, it has been all politicians pro/con gitmo...

[tinydancer]

When children in PLO territories watch a huge Mickey Mouse look alike getting offed by Israeli so called terrorists, and this is a child's program from freaking nutbar crazy Islamo crazies....

what the heck is going on?

every one I have personally met who is a muslim is cool.

But then I was in r and r.....So all of this is nuts in the sense that one half is cool, other half wants to slit our throats.

[Antrel]

For the record, I don't believe in torture. That being said, we are to go by the Constitution are we not? International law does not trump the Constitution. If the U.S. did violate part(s) of the Geneva Convention, who is going to report us? The enemies who are trying to kill us? Who would prosecute us? The U.N.? Screw them. Are we supposed to be reporting all that we do, to some international government authoritarian pencil pushing crew?Do you consider the Geneva Conventions to be a treaty, of which Article 6 would apply to?

[DaHa]

He didn't explain how we ( the U.S. ) are supposedly violating the Geneva Convention. The U.S. military has not taken in P.O.W.'s in Iraq and Afghanistan, that I am aware of. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

I have no links or anything to back it up, but certainly the war in Iraq was conventional at the beginning (against Iraqi regular army troops) and I would imagine POWs were taken. I also believe, as stated earlier, that the general's remarks regarding the Geneva Covention refer specifically to those, and he made separate remarks regarding Guantanamo unrelated to the Geneva Convention. I was unable to view the video, so am basing this on the summary in the OP.

[penner01]

When children in PLO territories watch a huge Mickey Mouse look alike getting offed by Israeli so called terrorists, and this is a child's program from freaking nutbar crazy Islamo crazies....

what the heck is going on?

every one I have personally met who is a muslim is cool.

But then I was in r and r.....So all of this is nuts in the sense that one half is cool, other half wants to slit our throats.Precisely why labelling this effort as against Muslims is a bad idea. That's not what it is. It just happens that there are fundmentalist hating us for their own reasons who happen to be a faction of the Muslim community.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Let us know if I got it wrong.
He did say "when we have." You were correct. Whether he was in fact speaking historically or about GITMO, I can't say for sure. I interpreted that part of his comment as encompassing both scenarios.

[DaHa]

For the record, I don't believe in torture. That being said, we are to go by the Constitution are we not? International law does not trump the Constitution. If the U.S. did violate part(s) of the Geneva Convention, who is going to report us? The enemies who are trying to kill us? Who would prosecute us? The U.N.? Screw them. Are we supposed to be reporting all that we do, to some international government authoritarian pencil pushing crew?

Then the treaty shouldn't have been signed in the first place, or should be pulled out of if the country isn't willing to abide by it.

[texashusker34]

For the record, I don't believe in torture. That being said, we are to go by the Constitution are we not? International law does not trump the Constitution. If the U.S. did violate part(s) of the Geneva Convention, who is going to report us? The enemies who are trying to kill us? Who would prosecute us? The U.N.? Screw them. Are we supposed to be reporting all that we do, to some international government authoritarian pencil pushing crew?

Has nothing to do with international law. Congress agreed that we will abide by the Geneva Convention so it is part of our law. It's a part of the UCMJ now so we police ourselves. As to the world court, they can bite me. They can prosecute nations that don't police themselves.

[Liability]

What does it mean?

If the good General says that he, in essence, believes that we "have" violated the Geneva Convention, does that mean we "have?" Couldn't he be simply wrong or misguided?

Is he talking about water-boarding, for example?

Is that a violation of the GC? With all due respect, I don't think he's right if that's what he's suggesting.

Or, is he saying that a couple of soldiers have gone too far? I don't dispute that. Hell, we've prosecuted a couple of soldiers. Rightly or wrongly I cannot say. But giving the justice system its due, let's say that convictions mean that a couple of soldiers DID go too far. Is THAT what the General was talking about?

If it is, he's at least partly right. That kind of behavior DOES justifiably give us a black eye. Perhaps that's partly why we deem it criminal and prosecute the alleged offenders, though! Oddly, we get no "credit" from our international critics (or from any of the domestic brand of libbies) when we do the latter.

Possibly the General meant that we went BEYOND water-boarding? And if we did, perhaps he's suggesting that such behavior (authorized behavior??) is violative of the GC? Maybe. But if THAT'S what the General was saying, it needs to be fleshed out, qualified and quantified.

And there's not a single "guest" here at Hannity who can answer these questions. There ARE quite a few libbies, though, who will argue that the ambiguous suggestion (or the "belief") of the General is somehow conclusive proof that "we" suck.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Do you consider the Geneva Conventions to be a treaty, of which Article 6 would apply to?

No.

[Buschb]

if the story is true, then I support what the Gen has said.

up until now, it has been all politicians pro/con gitmo...

Amen...**** the hacks
listen to the man on the ground...


People discredit Micheal Alexander when he has oversaw 1000 interrogations and pulled another 300 on his own...

Yet his word means nothing....give me a break

[Antrel]

No.Why not?

[Buschb]

I think the General was saying we screwed up...put it in the past and we won't do it again
I don't see his words as "try to fact check"....

He's speaking about the philosophy of the course we should take

[BasicGreatGuy]

Has nothing to do with international law. Congress agreed that we will abide by the Geneva Convention so it is part of our law. It's a part of the UCMJ now so we police ourselves. As to the world court, they can bite me. They can prosecute nations that don't police themselves.

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with International Law? How does that work?

[BasicGreatGuy]

Why not?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123746.pdf

I may be wrong here but I view it as "other agreements."

[texashusker34]

We are fighting people that are not signatories of the Conventions.

So what?

We still have our standards, even if the enemy does not. I couldn't care less about the treaty, I do care that America is a force for good, not evil. We shouldn't torture for the sake of torture. If someone calls a technique that we use torture and that technique saves lives... they can take a dive off of a tall bridge. I value the lives of innocent civilians far more than getting to claim we don't torture. What's right is right and if it's used as a recruiting tool against us, well, the ones they recruited were going to join the fight anyway.

I still can't figure out how we blame ourselves for capturing and holding terrorists when we say it has inflamed the problem. So what are we to do? Not hold the very people that are trying to kill civilians? I'm sorry but if you are angered over us capturing and holding terrorists, you're too stupid to live anyway .. join their side and die like the rest.

[texashusker34]

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with International Law? How does that work?

We agreed to the convention so it's our law now. Congress passed it. We must abide by it or reverse our law. Our laws are what I'm concerned with, international law is irrelevant to me.

[penner01]

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with International Law? How does that work?I think International Law would be an overstatment. I would liken the Conventions more to a ratified treaty for the conduct of hostilities. Ratified relating to Congress agreed and that makes it binding upon us in the world community. That said, there is still the argument that our detainees, other than SH's troops are not covered under the conventions by definition. Those that argue the "moral highground" say that shouldn't matter but the argument against is just as valid.

[penner01]

What I worry about, and I think it worthy of an another discussion,I've been consistent on the human rights discussions of radical RADICAL MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.:) not sure I've seen your posts in those discussions so ultimately that means.......um, I don't understand.

[texashusker34]

I think International Law would be an overstatment. I would liken the Conventions more to a ratified treaty for the conduct of hostilities. Ratified relating to Congress agreed and that makes it binding upon us in the world community. That said, there is still the argument that our detainees, other than SH's troops are not covered under the conventions by definition. Those that argue the "moral highground" say that shouldn't matter but the argument against is just as valid.

I don't think you can argue that they aren't covered...

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

I don't see where we're violating the Geneva Convention though.

[penner01]

So what?

We still have our standards, even if the enemy does not. I couldn't care less about the treaty, I do care that America is a force for good, not evil. We shouldn't torture for the sake of torture. If someone calls a technique that we use torture and that technique saves lives... they can take a dive off of a tall bridge. I value the lives of innocent civilians far more than getting to claim we don't torture. What's right is right and if it's used as a recruiting tool against us, well, the ones they recruited were going to join the fight anyway.

I still can't figure out how we blame ourselves for capturing and holding terrorists when we say it has inflamed the problem. So what are we to do? Not hold the very people that are trying to kill civilians? I'm sorry but if you are angered over us capturing and holding terrorists, you're too stupid to live anyway .. join their side and die like the rest.I have my thoughts on all of this mostly, but my response was to a statement to the effect that the conventions apply to us when they capture our soldiers. Tell that to the guys with no heads. And even Holder, you know ultimately made a distinction between harsh techniques for the sake of gaining intelligence as opposed to harsh techniques for the sake of harsh techniques as you characterize it.

[penner01]

I don't think you can argue that they aren't covered...
You have to read each definition in the conventions. They aren't covered.

[orbitaldecay]

While I might have disagreements with the General regaring enhanced interrogation methods and torture, he's an honorable and stand-up guy.

He's honorable, and he's obviously smart (he's even got a Ph.D)...I wouldn't be surprised or dissatisfied to see him run for office someday.

I'm slightly curious if he could possibly be eying the white house in 2012 as Eisenhower 2.0 :think:

[Ninjacorpse]

I think the General was saying we screwed up...put it in the past and we won't do it again
I don't see his words as "try to fact check"....

He's speaking about the philosophy of the course we should take

I think he was saying we need to put them on food stamps, see what you libertarians started?

[Middy]

I haven't been able to view the video, so there may be context I'm missing, but from the summary, the general does not refer specifically to the 'unlawful combatants' when talking about the Geneva Conventions (although, again from the summary, he does specifically mention Guantanamo). In both Iraq and Afghanistan, at one point or another, US forces have faced regular troops, who are indeed covered. If I recall correctly, the Abu'Ghraib (spelling??) issue involved regular Iraqi military personnel for example.

And to those posters who felt that he said this because he wanted to protect his own job... I obviously don't know the man personally, but from what I've seen he is both decent and honorable, and has acquitted himself well in the field. I find implications that he is 'towing the corporate line' distasteful and disrespectful, and the comments appear to have been made simply because he has taken a position other that that which you believe in.

Maybe Moveon.org will no longer refer to him as "General Betrayus."

[Middy]

You have to read each definition in the conventions. They aren't covered.

They are not members of a uniformed army whose leader was a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

[DaHa]

Maybe Moveon.org will no longer refer to him as "General Betrayus."

I felt the same way about that issue, but was neither a reader nor a poster on this board then, so made no comments related to that. I think, and always have, that the general has done a fine job and have seen no reason to believe he is less than an honorable man and telling the truth as he sees it.

[Ninjacorpse]

I think he was saying we need to put them on food stamps, see what you libertarians started?

I demand answers.

[SFC(R)L]

I think International Law would be an overstatment. I would liken the Conventions more to a ratified treaty for the conduct of hostilities. Ratified relating to Congress agreed and that makes it binding upon us in the world community. That said, there is still the argument that our detainees, other than SH's troops are not covered under the conventions by definition. Those that argue the "moral highground" say that shouldn't matter but the argument against is just as valid.

The Geneva Conventions are the basis of the International Humanitarian Law, fitting inside the Law Of Armed Conflict. The United States is a signatory and a high contracting party to the Conventions. As such, per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land. Accordingly, The Conventions apply to the United States on all occasions. All combatants on the field are protected by the Conventions, either by Convention III, Art 3, or by Protocol 1, article 75. Lawful combatants are protected as POW; unlawful combatants are not. Irrespective of this, we are obliged to abide by the conventions on all occasions.

There is no "moral high ground" argument; this is the law.There is no counter argument. Either you are willing to obey the Constitution or you are not.

Those who have abused detainees on these occasions are in violation of the Constitution and must be properly disciplined.

To not do so is yet again another violation of law.

And I have been proposing these facts for almost a month.

[wiley8425]

It is a mess. This fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back, because you have to be political correct at home and abroad with people who are doing all they can to kill you, is very frustrating to see. This is the kind of crap that happens, when you try to nation build and fight a war a country at the same time.


The Geneva Conventions, much like the Constitution, were not intended to be a suicide pact. In order to receive the protections of the GC, the "victimized" party would have to adhere to it. Otherwise, what good would drawing up such a treaty serve and why on Earth would anybody sign it? People lack common sense.

That being said, if we were to violate the GC against a non-signatory (which really wouldn't be a violation, but I digress) there's nothing keeping other signatories from not adhering to it where our people are concerned because we would no longer be considered legal combatants because of it. At least, that's my understanding of the argument at hand. I think it's patently bogus, but hey, what do I know?

Given how the majority of the world reacts to anything we say or do anyway, I personally don't understand why we keep ourselves tied down to such an archaic arrangement, especially if the GC is a one-sided treaty as so many here keep espousing. But then, I'm an eye for an eye sort of guy anyway.

[wiley8425]

You have to read each definition in the conventions. They aren't covered.

Exactly right. In fact, they are specifically excluded by their actions under Article II. But what do I know? We regularly establish arbitrary treaties limiting our actions and noone elses. :rolleyes:

[flannie]

Read the article. Listen to the video. Carefully.

There's been a lot of assumption of what he actually said, and a lot of really off-the-mark posts here.

[opsyscw]

And I noticed in an interview on Greta tonight he has adopted the new pronouncement of Pakistan ... Poooook...eeee..stooon.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I'm sorry but the Geneva Convention applies to all. We have the moral high ground. The clothes you choose have nothing to do with your status as a combatant. The fact that you're holding a gun and shooting at your enemy does that. As to the Geneva convention covering the folks in Cuba, someone show me where we are violating their rights according to the Geneva convention.

Actually the clothes do matter. A great deal.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

We are fighting people that are not signatories of the Conventions.

Antrel is correct.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

The Geneva Conventions, much like the Constitution, were not intended to be a suicide pact. In order to receive the protections of the GC, the "victimized" party would have to adhere to it. Otherwise, what good would drawing up such a treaty serve and why on Earth would anybody sign it? People lack common sense.

That being said, if we were to violate the GC against a non-signatory (which really wouldn't be a violation, but I digress) there's nothing keeping other signatories from not adhering to it where our people are concerned because we would no longer be considered legal combatants because of it. At least, that's my understanding of the argument at hand. I think it's patently bogus, but hey, what do I know?

Given how the majority of the world reacts to anything we say or do anyway, I personally don't understand why we keep ourselves tied down to such an archaic arrangement, especially if the GC is a one-sided treaty as so many here keep espousing. But then, I'm an eye for an eye sort of guy anyway.

I disagree. The GC is actually a suicide pact. One formulated by the Europeans after they were horrified at what they themselves had done. It is an attempt to regulate waerfare with rules of fair play -regulating war to a sport. Which is very, very dangerous. And since our government has always been run by Europhiles, we jumped on the bandwagon.

[old guy]

i have an idea for those that say waterboardinbg isnt torture et all..

Wht not have a military tribunal decide the issue. have those that think wb is torture present their side and those who think it isnt present their side. Have the tribunal composed of several top ranking military officers.

If the tribunal decides its torture that put those that ordered or approved it (cheney included) stand trial. If the tribunal decides its not tortued then no trial.

[TCUFan]

Do you all Libertarians care about the Geneva Convention, though? After all, you all do not believe that we should keep our entanglements in treaties and such to a bare minimum, so why do you all care if we violation the Geneva Convention or not?

The Libertarians view the Geneva Convention as an amusing aside. They're wondering why it was necessary for the US to sign it in the first place. After all, the American military should wait until the barbarians are at the gates...or at least have an ICBM that can hit Vegas and the enemy is close to a decent golf course with a open hash bar.

TCUFan

[crux]

i have an idea for those that say waterboardinbg isnt torture et all..

Wht not have a military tribunal decide the issue. have those that think wb is torture present their side and those who think it isnt present their side. Have the tribunal composed of several top ranking military officers.

If the tribunal decides its torture that put those that ordered or approved it (cheney included) stand trial. If the tribunal decides its not tortued then no trial.

Why a military tribunal? It was the CIA that were involved in the interrogations in question. They aren't part of the DOD

[Charlie A]

I'm sorry but the Geneva Convention applies to all. We have the moral high ground. The clothes you choose have nothing to do with your status as a combatant. The fact that you're holding a gun and shooting at your enemy does that. As to the Geneva convention covering the folks in Cuba, someone show me where we are violating their rights according to the Geneva convention.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 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.
* 4.1.6 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.
* 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

The denizens of Gitmo are not in uniformed service, have not obeyed the laws and customs of war as defined in the Geneva Convention, and are organized into regular armed units so 4.1.6 does not apply to them.

Technically speaking they should have been summarily executed after their interrogations in the field.

[penner01]

The Geneva Conventions are the basis of the International Humanitarian Law, fitting inside the Law Of Armed Conflict. The United States is a signatory and a high contracting party to the Conventions. As such, per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land. Accordingly, The Conventions apply to the United States on all occasions. All combatants on the field are protected by the Conventions, either by Convention III, Art 3, or by Protocol 1, article 75. Lawful combatants are protected as POW; unlawful combatants are not. Irrespective of this, we are obliged to abide by the conventions on all occasions.

There is no "moral high ground" argument; this is the law.There is no counter argument. Either you are willing to obey the Constitution or you are not.

Those who have abused detainees on these occasions are in violation of the Constitution and must be properly disciplined.

To not do so is yet again another violation of law.

And I have been proposing these facts for almost a month.Oh yes, I follow your comments regularly and admire that your stance is compelling. When I have responded on your comments it is much less a matter or argument or depate than simple response.

But what exactly is the body of International Humanitarian Law? If it truly exists is it nothing more than head shaking? Certainly there are far more henous violations of humanitarianism than the question of whether we waterboarded some terrorists. I disagree there is no argument. In a court of law, given black and white I do continue to believe our conduct is defensable. That is not to say what some consider a "higher value system" would not make them inclusive anyway. I won't debate that simply because a side of me says, yeah we should regardless whether or not we were compelled to by law.

As for moral high ground.....I don't personally use that argument as a basis as I do for scorn. I weary of people speaking of moral high ground when every walk of American life proves few really have any sense of it. And, moral high ground is more commonly used conceptually by those that feel they have a better posture in it than others.......that while it is truly a matter of personal perspective.

And the constitution.........I'm wondering where that question enters into your response regarding the GC. Is it a suggestion or reference to equality? I don't get it.

All that said I would tell you one thing I value. In this forum I value the opportunity to read the comments of some, yourself included, that are consistent in the expression of their values....agree or disagree.

[penner01]

I disagree. The GC is actually a suicide pact. One formulated by the Europeans after they were horrified at what they themselves had done. It is an attempt to regulate waerfare with rules of fair play -regulating war to a sport. Which is very, very dangerous. And since our government has always been run by Europhiles, we jumped on the bandwagon.I would hardly consider injecting an expectation of humane treatment of those renedered incapable of continuing the fight as a reduction of warefare to a matter of sport. Neither would I consider it so when we seek to find some manner of civility in an uncivilized action. I don't know the basis for the claim you make regarding the Europeans but I suspect it's opinion. An attempt at assurance that in warefare killing is not simply for killing's sake is a bad thing?

[dashvinny]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him

lol, that how promotions come in the military. agree with the boss.

[RickRhetoric]

Petraeus is just another general trying to keep on the good side of Obama out of fear of placing his lucrative retirement benefits in jeopardy.

Phth!

[CIGuy2001]

Good question.

One thing is for sure though, it is not the geneva convention, and this general is a moron for saying that and making people think we broke our own rules.

He is just a newcoming political whore, probably run for the Senate or something.

Gen. Petraeus is not a moron by any stretch of the word. In fact, he is one of the most thoughtful, insightful, operational commanders in our time. His words mean something. Now, having said that. I completely disagree with his assessment. Being an honorable man, as I believe the General to be, I believe he is strong in his convictions, but that doesn't mean that he is above reproach and incapable or error.

One thing that has been put out there is that the General may be simply paying allegiance to his current CinC. That is extremely possible. If he believes he is the right man for his current job and values the lives of his soldiers, he will do what he can to keep his position without violating his strongest convictions.

[CIGuy2001]

Petraeus is just another general trying to keep on the good side of Obama out of fear of placing his lucrative retirement benefits in jeopardy.

Phth!

He wouldn't lose his retirement benefits at this point.

[hayek]

Petraeus is just another general trying to keep on the good side of Obama out of fear of placing his lucrative retirement benefits in jeopardy.

Phth!
If that is the type of person he is, I'm sure he did the same under the previous administration as well. I'm not sure I believe he is the political tool that you think he is.

[RickRhetoric]

He wouldn't lose his retirement benefits at this point.

You're correct. He's already got his "20" in. But Obama could, just as Clinton, when a general opposed him, would boot the general minus a star. That does indeed affect retirement benefits as well as potential high-salaried civil service appointments.

[CIGuy2001]

You're correct. He's already got his "20" in. But Obama could, just as Clinton, when a general opposed him, would boot the general minus a star. That does indeed affect retirement benefits as well as potential high-salaried civil service appointments.

An appointment could be affected by that. As far as retirement, the change if bumped down a star would be a few hundred bucks a month, when he would be getting around $12-13K a month. Not that big of a deal.

[WildRose]

Wow! It keeps getting better and better, or worse and worse,lol. I always felt like he was a stand up guy but like a good soldier follows orders.No if he followed unlawful orders or gave the same he is a war criminal. A soldier is bound by oath to only follow the "lawful orders" of the chain of command.

This absolutely needs a lot of clarification because the statements are so broad sweeping as to only cause ire.

[B' en Natuf]

The Geneva Conventions are the basis of the International Humanitarian Law, fitting inside the Law Of Armed Conflict. The United States is a signatory and a high contracting party to the Conventions. As such, per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land. Accordingly, The Conventions apply to the United States on all occasions. All combatants on the field are protected by the Conventions, either by Convention III, Art 3, or by Protocol 1, article 75. Lawful combatants are protected as POW; unlawful combatants are not. Irrespective of this, we are obliged to abide by the conventions on all occasions.

There is no "moral high ground" argument; this is the law.There is no counter argument. Either you are willing to obey the Constitution or you are not.

Those who have abused detainees on these occasions are in violation of the Constitution and must be properly disciplined.

To not do so is yet again another violation of law.

And I have been proposing these facts for almost a month.you have been stedfastly ignoring the facts of the law

GC Art II



Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Note the big word IF which dscribes when a party to the convention is bound in relations with a party that is NOT a party to the conventon. Has AQ accepted and applied the GC's? Do they fight according to the laws of war? The answer to both is no, which would mean their members are NOT protected by it and we are not bound by it in our relations with them.

IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF... try not to ignore it this time.

Nothing the GC's say with regard to prisoner treatment apply, because these prisoners are not covered. The GC protects the persons it descrobes, and it doesn't protect the ones they don't.

[B' en Natuf]

I'm still waiting for a quote from Petreus that specificaly says we actually DID violate the GC's in this war.

[Lawson_Raider]

First of all, let's take a look at the behind the scenes of things shall we?

The officer corps of the military is different in general than the enlisted side of the military.

The officers play alot more politics than the enlisted folks who are the workhorse of the military. Don't tell me this isn't true, I work with officers every day; I see it all the time.

An officer gets promoted to general at the approval of Congress and each promotion afterwards has to get the same approval. Obviously, a perspective General wants to look good to Congress to get his or her promotion and that is where the politics come to play.

You really have to look no further than Colin Powell to see how a military officer gets political. They suck up to whatever administration is in office because they either want to maintain their position or advance in their careers. This story is the same thing.

Had McCain beein in office, Petraus would not have made this comment. End of story.

I respected the man until now. To me, he just joined the ranks of Colin Powell as a certifiable dirtbag. I don't respect a military officer who cannot make a stand for what is right even when it might cost him/her their position.

Let me make this clear. Since we weren't executing the terrorists on sight and decided to detain them, GitMo makes perfect sense. They are not detained in the combat zone for the risk of being freed in a counteroffensive and not on US soil for the vermin lawyers to put on our streets. The Geneva convention is crap anyways, no other country really follows it anyways so why should be be bound to it? We treat war like a game of monopoly. It's not a game. We need to be able to win the war and whatever means necessary.

[wiley8425]

you have been stedfastly ignoring the facts of the law

GC Art II

Note the big word IF which dscribes when a party to the convention is bound in relations with a party that is NOT a party to the conventon. Has AQ accepted and applied the GC's? Do they fight according to the laws of war? The answer to both is no, which would mean their members are NOT protected by it and we are not bound by it in our relations with them.

IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF... try not to ignore it this time.

Nothing the GC's say with regard to prisoner treatment apply, because these prisoners are not covered. The GC protects the persons it descrobes, and it doesn't protect the ones they don't.

Thank you. This was actually the article I was referring to earlier. As I said, the GC clearly was not intended to be a one sided treaty. If it were, I doubt any of the signatories would have actually signed it. Why sign a treaty that only limits the actions of your country and noone else's? Common sense...

[B' en Natuf]

Thank you. This was actually the article I was referring to earlier. As I said, the GC clearly was not intended to be a one sided treaty. If it were, I doubt any of the signatories would have actually signed it. Why sign a treaty that only limits the actions of your country and noone else's? Common sense...It was common practice on these boards for the bleeding heart terrorist sympathizers to trot out the terms of the GC's to claim we couldn't do what we were doing. They pretty much stopped that line of argument when the actual treaties words were put befor them declaring who was covered and when a nation was bound by it. Some are a little more difficult and still claim that the terms we don't have to abide by because of that big IF word still apply, though they can't say why they do other than to claim they do. The claim is baseless, and their argument has no merit.

[stoked]

So I guess if some country nukes us, then we shouldn't use any nukes because that would violate the Geneva Convention. :rolleyes: This country is finished.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I would hardly consider injecting an expectation of humane treatment of those renedered incapable of continuing the fight as a reduction of warefare to a matter of sport. Neither would I consider it so when we seek to find some manner of civility in an uncivilized action. I don't know the basis for the claim you make regarding the Europeans but I suspect it's opinion. An attempt at assurance that in warefare killing is not simply for killing's sake is a bad thing?

Rendered incapable of continuing the fight is generally a very temporary condition. The basis for my comment on the Europeans is history.

[Droog]

Good question.

One thing is for sure though, it is not the geneva convention, and this general is a moron for saying that and making people think we broke our own rules.I'll clue you in: there isn't one. So maybe we shouldn't be blowing off the GC for our own convenience, because without it, the government is saying these people have less rights than animals.

Someone did make a valid point that he may have been referring to lawful combatants that were abused. I don't know the context.

[Buschb]

Someone did make a valid point that he may have been referring to lawful combatants that were abused. I don't know the context.

I think that's the case

[Cav Scout]

Some Pubs/cons will think Petraeus.......has betrayed them...their party..and their country.

In that order.

Last time I checked it was not the pubs and cons taking out full page adds stating that though...

That would be oh yea, the LEFT!

I have the utmost respect for that man. In fact I have more respect for him then I have a lack of respect for you..and thats a lot.

[Malikstein]

... why are so concern of how we should be treating our enemies, as if theyre would so concern of how they will treat us ...

[WildRose]

Without the GC, what rights does an unlawful combatant have? Any? If so, what is the standard?Under the Geneva conventions they do not warrant the protections of either Uniformed "legal combatants" nor those of Civilians and they may be shot just like spies without any form of "due process".

[WildRose]

I hear ya....

But there's no way that Gitmo and waterboarding may be a recruitment tool like the General portrays?
Even when caught terrorist says that's the caseNo terrorists were being water boarded, nor shipped to Gitmo prior to AQ Et. Al attacking us.

The fact we are not Muslim, and support Israel generally is all that is necessary to recruit them.

[Cav Scout]

Not even going to read in this thread, just want to say Petraeus is a moron.

If you read the Geneva Conventions it is clear to what and who they apply.

I really should not reply to this but I will.

I would like to see your qualifications on the subject at hand...

[Malikstein]

No terrorists were being water boarded, nor shipped to Gitmo prior to AQ Et. Al attacking us.

The fact we are not Muslim, and support Israel generally is all that is necessary to recruit them.

... in short and easy way, there was no gitmo before 9/11 ...

[Cav Scout]

Rendered incapable of continuing the fight is generally a very temporary condition. The basis for my comment on the Europeans is history.

And I agree, the GC is nothing more then the euro trash realizing the acts they had committed and self loathing. As per the course we bailed right on...

The LOAC is all we need, if followed the GC is not violated anyway.

[mawst95]

Without the GC, what rights does an unlawful combatant have? Any? If so, what is the standard?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

oh, that's right, conservatives only count the decisions they agree with.

[mawst95]

Thank you. This was actually the article I was referring to earlier. As I said, the GC clearly was not intended to be a one sided treaty. If it were, I doubt any of the signatories would have actually signed it. Why sign a treaty that only limits the actions of your country and noone else's? Common sense...

Great logic. Nicely said. Except that the issue is Common Article III, not I or II, and Common Article III is much broader in scope and applies to the US in regards to the detainees.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Google:

"Petraeus Geneva Martha MacCallum"

on Fox News site. Find this:

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22392254/fox-news-exclusive.htm#q=Petraeus+Geneva+Martha+MacCallum

transcript doesn't mention the 'Geneva' part. I guess that part isn't considered 'fair & balanced'

[Cletus Wilbury]

U.S. Says It Will Adhere to Geneva (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/12/nation/na-detain12) , July 12, 2006



The Bush administration acknowledged Tuesday that it was legally obligated to apply Geneva Convention protections to detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, reversing a position it has held tightly for more than four years.
...

[penner01]

Rendered incapable of continuing the fight is generally a very temporary condition. The basis for my comment on the Europeans is history.Things that occured and called for atonement maybe is in European history, but I mean, to say that this was their way cleansing? What is the basis for that?

[penner01]

And I agree, the GC is nothing more then the euro trash realizing the acts they had committed and self loathing. As per the course we bailed right on...

The LOAC is all we need, if followed the GC is not violated anyway.The LOAC is?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Things that occured and called for atonement maybe is in European history, but I mean, to say that this was their way cleansing? What is the basis for that?

History.

[rodlang]

Wasn't MOVEON.org that referred to General Petreaus and General Betrayus...and many liberals laughed and thought it was appropriate. Have they issued a public apology yet?

[SFC(R)L]

Wasn't MOVEON.org that referred to General Petreaus and General Betrayus...and many liberals laughed and thought it was appropriate. Have they issued a public apology yet?

if so, I haven't seen it.

[SFC(R)L]

The LOAC is?

The Law Of Armed Conflict

comprised of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as applicable international humanitarian law

[SFC(R)L]

Under the Geneva conventions they do not warrant the protections of either Uniformed "legal combatants" nor those of Civilians and they may be shot just like spies without any form of "due process".

that's exactly wrong unless you can show something that overrides protocol 1, article 75 or the general articles concerning treating all combatants.

[SFC(R)L]

So I guess if some country nukes us, then we shouldn't use any nukes because that would violate the Geneva Convention. :rolleyes: This country is finished.

no one has suggested that.

Really, grow up.

[mawst95]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

The only opinion that counts.

/thread

[SFC(R)L]

Oh yes, I follow your comments regularly and admire that your stance is compelling. When I have responded on your comments it is much less a matter or argument or depate than simple response.

But what exactly is the body of International Humanitarian Law? If it truly exists is it nothing more than head shaking? Certainly there are far more henous violations of humanitarianism than the question of whether we waterboarded some terrorists. I disagree there is no argument. In a court of law, given black and white I do continue to believe our conduct is defensable. That is not to say what some consider a "higher value system" would not make them inclusive anyway. I won't debate that simply because a side of me says, yeah we should regardless whether or not we were compelled to by law.

As for moral high ground.....I don't personally use that argument as a basis as I do for scorn. I weary of people speaking of moral high ground when every walk of American life proves few really have any sense of it. And, moral high ground is more commonly used conceptually by those that feel they have a better posture in it than others.......that while it is truly a matter of personal perspective.

And the constitution.........I'm wondering where that question enters into your response regarding the GC. Is it a suggestion or reference to equality? I don't get it.

All that said I would tell you one thing I value. In this forum I value the opportunity to read the comments of some, yourself included, that are consistent in the expression of their values....agree or disagree.

The body of humanitarian law would be the Hague Convention of 1907, The Geneva Conventions, and the Convention Against Torture.
Breaking the law is breaking the law, and the fact that you are trying to justify this disgusting episode by saying "it wasn't that bad" is what eliminates you from command eligibility. There is no debate; you are either willing to follow the law or you're not, and you have stated here that you are not if it is inconvenient for you.

There is no moral argument that support the deliberate abuse of human beings. That makes you a terrorist.

Article VI, paragraph 2 makes the treaty we signed the law of the land. Violating the treaty is violating the Constitution.

Those who have, in any way, participated in this Un-American, disgusting episode have violated our Constitution and beling in prison.

[SFC(R)L]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

The only opinion that counts.

/thread

Ex Parte Quirin is correct.

Attempts by persons recently to provide rights to these vermin are erroneous.

[johnrocks]

OBL's driver talked because of cookies. Sometimes you can catch more flies with sugar or sugar free cookies in his case than vinegar per the old saying.

[B' en Natuf]

that's exactly wrong unless you can show something that overrides protocol 1, article 75 or the general articles concerning treating all combatants.Article II. Which you still ignore the words of. Must be really difficult to have to blind yourself in order to bleed so much for terrorist rights.

Article II is clear. Much clearer than the crap you spew for he terorists. It says plainly that a high contracting party is bound by the treaty when dealing with a non-contracting party IF (that big word you so studiously -or stupidly- ignore) the non-contracting party accepts and adheres to the protocols. When you get your terrorist buddies to do that... let us know, cause then... we will be bound by it. Until then, cattle have more rights.

[B' en Natuf]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

oh, that's right, conservatives only count the decisions they agree with.Conservatives agree wuith what the law says, not with what any group of people in any position might say it says.

[B' en Natuf]

U.S. Says It Will Adhere to Geneva (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/12/nation/na-detain12) , July 12, 2006
offering terrorist no rights IS adhering to Geneva

[ShinGouki]

How did we violate the Geneva convention if the terrorists weren't wearing uniforms and fighting under a flag? They aren't covered under the Geneva Convention.

Now, it's possible we violated international law against Saddam's army.

[Liability]

How did we violate the Geneva convention if the terrorists weren't wearing uniforms and fighting under a flag? They aren't covered under the Geneva Convention.

Now, it's possible we violated international law against Saddam's army.

Saying such a thing without valid evidence is merely irresponsible.

[ShinGouki]

Saying such a thing without valid evidence is merely irresponsible.

I was just saying it's certainly possible. Every country in every war violates some kind of international treaty.

Is it possible we did something to Saddam's soldiers after they were captured that violates Geneva? Certainly. I don't believe we did, but what I believe doesn't matter. It's always possible.

[Liability]

I was just saying it's certainly possible. Every country in every war violates some kind of international treaty.

Is it possible we did something to Saddam's soldiers after they were captured that violates Geneva? Certainly. I don't believe we did, but what I believe doesn't matter. It's always possible.

It's possible that you have something intelligent to contribute to this discussion. No evidence of that. But, hey. It's possible.

[ShinGouki]

It's possible that you have something intelligent to contribute to this discussion. No evidence of that. But, hey. It's possible.

Really now. :rolleyes:

Am I supposed to simply say "WE NEVER VIOLATED ANYTHING!!!!"

I don't know if we did or not. I said it was possibility. Jeez.

[Liability]

Really now. :rolleyes:

Am I supposed to simply say "WE NEVER VIOLATED ANYTHING!!!!"

I don't know if we did or not. I said it was possibility. Jeez.


To point out that anything is possible is purely meaningless. I mean, really. So what?

It is possible that the Nazi government was really just a bunch of nice guys with a slightly off-kilter view of the universe. According to you "it's 'possible.'"

Shall we create a thread to "debate" the merits of that one? if not, why not? Could it be that it is ACTUALLY a meaningless assertion?

If you have any factual basis to allege that the U.S. violated the GC in the fight against Saddam's forces, that might warrant a discussion. But to just toss it out into a vacuum under the guise that "anything is possible" remains utterly meaningless or irresponsible.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

OBL's driver talked because of cookies. Sometimes you can catch more flies with sugar or sugar free cookies in his case than vinegar per the old saying.

Urban Legend

[Cletus Wilbury]

Conservatives agree wuith what the law says, not with what any group of people in any position might say it says.

Under the Constitution that group, SCOTUS, interprets the law.
What might be interesting would be finding comments by the dissenters in that ruling that support your position.

[Czhorat]

Wow. I'm curious: how many of you who are slamming Petraeus now were part of the same chorus decrying moveon.org for their "General Betray-us" ad? Is someone only a patriot while they agree with you, and an idiot when they don't?

What amazes me is how quick those on the right are to marginalize and personally attack anyone who disagrees with them on this issue: it's not enough to say that they're wrong, they also have to be "idiots" "morons" "political whores", etc. The anger astounds me.

[Cletus Wilbury]

.... The anger astounds me.

I was also 'astounded' that Fox chose not to mention significant parts of their own interview with Petraeus.

Seems that MoveOn.org then & many who are now criticizing the General now either haven't read or don't understand the counterinsurgency strategy. It's emphasis on the political side of the equation is an important component that the peaceniks & neo-cons fail to comprehend.

[SFC(R)L]

Wow. I'm curious: how many of you who are slamming Petraeus now were part of the same chorus decrying moveon.org for their "General Betray-us" ad? Is someone only a patriot while they agree with you, and an idiot when they don't?

What amazes me is how quick those on the right are to marginalize and personally attack anyone who disagrees with them on this issue: it's not enough to say that they're wrong, they also have to be "idiots" "morons" "political whores", etc. The anger astounds me.

Equally, the far left attacked this man in the press with full page ads when he expressed the desire to do his job. Where is the denouncement of that venom?

Equally, there are those on the left who now see him as a saint as he apparently sides with their "agenda".

The issue is that this is not a political issue; it is not a left/right, liberal/conservative, repub/demo issue. It is an American issue. It's an issue as to whether or not you are going to follow the law or whether you are not, whether you believe in right and wrong. It's so simple that it has confounded millions.

[SFC(R)L]

Saying such a thing without valid evidence is merely irresponsible.

And I am weary of the "They're not protected by the GC" nonsense.

[johnrocks]

Urban Legend

How do you know,were you there?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Wow. I'm curious: how many of you who are slamming Petraeus now were part of the same chorus decrying moveon.org for their "General Betray-us" ad? Is someone only a patriot while they agree with you, and an idiot when they don't?

What amazes me is how quick those on the right are to marginalize and personally attack anyone who disagrees with them on this issue: it's not enough to say that they're wrong, they also have to be "idiots" "morons" "political whores", etc. The anger astounds me.

Has King David changed his positions since Obamessiah took office?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

How do you know,were you there?

You don't know, do you?

[Liability]

Under the Constitution that group, SCOTUS, interprets the law.
What might be interesting would be finding comments by the dissenters in that ruling that support your position.

Not quite accurate.

Under the Constitution, what the SCOTUS does is address certain cases and controversies.

"Interpreting the law" is a self-proclaimed adjunct to its actual Constitutional mission.

[Liability]

And I am weary of the "They're not protected by the GC" nonsense.


Well we do HAVE to agree that the GC does protect certain SPECIFIED entities by its own terms.

Unless by its terms it covers everybody on planet Earth, then it seems to follow that there must be some people the GC does NOT cover -- by its own terms.

Furthermore, I believe it to be the case that the United States did not ratify all parts of the GC. If my memory on that point is true, then how can we be bound by the provisions of the GC to which we are not signatories?

[wiley8425]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

oh, that's right, conservatives only count the decisions they agree with.


(ii) Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons … placed hors de combat by … detention,” including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences … without previous judgment … by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character. ” That reasoning is erroneous. That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory “accepts and applies” those terms. Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65–68. I guess I missed the part in their decision where they declared that terror suspects were accepting and applying the GC. Oh that's right. According to the SCOTUS, they don't have to, since they're not representing a nation. Nice logic there. :rolleyes: In other words, they decided to throw out Article 2 (because it afforded no protection to Hamden since he was violating it) under the guise that it wasn't an "international" conflict. Not because it would have afforded no protection to him. Got to love liberal reasoning.

[wiley8425]

Well we do HAVE to agree that the GC does protect certain SPECIFIED entities by its own terms.

Unless by its terms it covers everybody on planet Earth, then it seems to follow that there must be some people the GC does NOT cover -- by its own terms.

Furthermore, I believe it to be the case that the United States did not ratify all parts of the GC. If my memory on that point is true, then how can we be bound by the provisions of the GC to which we are not signatories?

We can only be bound to the provisions we accept and apply ourselves. As would any other signatory dealing with us. Pretty much like any other treaty in existence.

[wiley8425]

Article II. Which you still ignore the words of.

Well, clearly, Article II doesn't apply since according to the SCOTUS we're not talking about a conflict between nations. :rolleyes:

[Liability]

We can only be bound to the provisions we accept and apply ourselves. As would any other signatory dealing with us. Pretty much like any other treaty in existence.

We can only be PROPERLY and meaningfully bound by our agreements. The SCOTUS, however, does not necessarily give a crap about such distinctions.

[wiley8425]

We can only be PROPERLY and meaningfully bound by our agreements. The SCOTUS, however, does not necessarily give a crap about such distinctions.

We are in agreement then.

[SFC(R)L]

Well we do HAVE to agree that the GC does protect certain SPECIFIED entities by its own terms.

Unless by its terms it covers everybody on planet Earth, then it seems to follow that there must be some people the GC does NOT cover -- by its own terms.

Furthermore, I believe it to be the case that the United States did not ratify all parts of the GC. If my memory on that point is true, then how can we be bound by the provisions of the GC to which we are not signatories?

The legal issue is that Al Qaeda is not a high contracting party to the Convention, as they are not a sovereign state. Accordingly, they cannot enter into the treaty on a formal basis as an entity. They are protected as individuals, as we are the High Contracting party involved in the hostilities.
Convention III, Article 3 is our guide. “..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.”
Prisoners of War, as defined in article 4 of this same convention, have additional protections and provisions as they are the lawful combatants of a sovereign, High Contract Party to the treaty. Al Qaeda does not meet this criteria. So we must proceed as a high contracting party to the treaty and abide by our obnligations to the treaty, irrespective of the other party.
Part VI states “Art. 130. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.” Once we take a unlawful combatant into detention, they become a “person protected by the convention” and these rules apply. These are considered grave breaches of the treaty. Part VI goes on to say “Art. 131. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.” So there is no memo on Earth that can set these rules aside.
We are signatories to Protocol 1, but have not ratified the same. As a matter of policy, the United States has stated that the provisions of the Conventions apply and will be our guide in treating persons in our fight against terror. Protocol 1 was rejected by President Reagan over the belief that it unduly protected irregular forces and guerillas from attack. This creates a quandary as Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution speaks to treaties being the law of the land. As such, US policy clearly is that Protocol 1 applies in a practical sense: “1977 Geneva Protocols (ref. (7)). Although the United States has not ratified AP I and II, most nations have ratified AP I. U.S. commanders must be aware that many allied forces are under a legal obligation to comply with the Protocols, and the United States believes some provisions of the Protocol to be customary international law (see 1986 memorandum from Hays Parks in document supplement). This difference in obligation has not proven to be a hindrance to U.S. allied or coalition operations since promulgation of AP I in 1977.” http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/oplaw_hdbk.pdf (page 15). So it follows that Article 75 of Protocol 1 applies as a matter of law.

[B' en Natuf]

Well, clearly, Article II doesn't apply since according to the SCOTUS we're not talking about a conflict between nations. :rolleyes:When you find the words in article II which would require that a nation not accept the terms to be left unprotected instead of an orginization... let us know. That of course could take a while, since to find it you'll have to get the treaty amended.

[wiley8425]

When you find the words in article II which would require that a nation not accept the terms to be left unprotected instead of an orginization... let us know. That of course could take a while, since to find it you'll have to get the treaty amended.

I was being sarcastic. My opinion doesn't mesh with what the SCOTUS said and I already stated that I disagree with it. http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=55351511&postcount=171

[B' en Natuf]

I was being sarcastic. My opinion doesn't mesh with what the SCOTUS said and I already stated that I disagree with it. http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=55351511&postcount=171I should have clarified. I know yu were, I responded for the benefit of those who might take what you said as a valid opinion.

[McCoyFan]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him

General Petraeus did say maybe an Executive Order could be appropriate

So Executive Order can override the Geneva Convention in the interest of the national security of the country

[SFC(R)L]

Executive Order can override the Geneva Convention in the interest of the national security of the country

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article Vi, paragraph 2, is the supreme law of the land.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

[Smokin Jay]

Without the GC, what rights does an unlawful combatant have? Any? If so, what is the standard?

Actually Geneva is still the standard. Once a person is taken off the battlefield and placed in U.S. custody, Geneva applies. No matter what the legal sidestepping the Bush Administration and John Yoo say.

[Liability]

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article Vi, paragraph 2, is the supreme law of the land.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

I am not clear on what you think that means. I can tell you what it DOES mean.

The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of our land. Not State Constitutions. Not laws passed which are in derogation of the Constitution. And it means that laws and treaties made in accordance with the Constitution ARE SUPREME and they trump State laws, etc., to the contrary.

Now, one thing it does NOT mean is that a mere treaty trumps the Constitution.

And when the U.S. RATIFIED the Geneva Accords (the Four Protocols), it came with a bunch of those pesky legal RESERVATIONS.

Here are some of the various Reservations made by the U.S. in ratification of the Geneva Convention: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument.

If a reservation has been made, then how we go about addressing the areas of the treaty to which we have made such reservations is within OUR province.

[SFC(R)L]

I am not clear on what you think that means. I can tell you what it DOES mean.

The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of our land. Not State Constitutions. Not laws passed which are in derogation of the Constitution. And it means that laws and treaties made in accordance with the Constitution ARE SUPREME and they trump State laws, etc., to the contrary.

Now, one thing it does NOT mean is that a mere treaty trumps the Constitution.

And when the U.S. RATIFIED the Geneva Accords (the Four Protocols), it came with a bunch of those pesky legal RESERVATIONS.

Here are some of the various Reservations made by the U.S. in ratification of the Geneva Convention: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument.

If a reservation has been made, then how we go about addressing the areas of the treaty to which we have made such reservations is within OUR province.

It means what I wrote-the GC common article applies.

[Greyghost]

When a command officer in the US military is asked a specific question by a journalist during an interveiw, " which you can bet your sweet ass was approved all the way up the chain of command, even likely issisted upon by the very top ", would you expect him to answere in favor of the former CinC or the current one, " who can fire him "?

Exactly, no doubt Obama made damn sure he let Gen. Petraeus know how he wants him to answer questions or face termination.

[Greyghost]

Actually Geneva is still the standard. Once a person is taken off the battlefield and placed in U.S. custody, Geneva applies. No matter what the legal sidestepping the Bush Administration and John Yoo say.

That applies to uniformed soldiers, NOT terrorist. :rolleyes:

[Liability]

It means what I wrote-the GC common article applies.

To whom and under what circumstances?

[toreyj01]

I think it's jumping the gun to state that Petraues was saying waterboarding and other enhanced interrogations were contrary to the Geneva Conventions. He wasn't even clear if he thought the Bush Administration were the ones responsible for the breaking Geneva.Well he DID say that since 9/11 we did it, so that sort of puts it in the prior administration. Just saying..

[SFC(R)L]

That applies to uniformed soldiers, NOT terrorist. :rolleyes:

yes, them too

just not POW

[SFC(R)L]

To whom and under what circumstances?

To all detainees in US custody under any and all circumstances.

They are entitled to additional protections if they meet the standards of POW. Which they do not.

[SFC(R)L]

Exactly, no doubt Obama made damn sure he let Gen. Petraeus know how he wants him to answer questions or face termination.

I am sure the General formed his position as a Division Commander 6 years ago, as he said, and when he watched in 2004-05 as the allegations of abuses popped up and the violation of the GC was made plain.

[toreyj01]

What does it mean?

If the good General says that he, in essence, believes that we "have" violated the Geneva Convention, does that mean we "have?" Couldn't he be simply wrong or misguided?

Is he talking about water-boarding, for example?

Is that a violation of the GC? With all due respect, I don't think he's right if that's what he's suggesting.

Or, is he saying that a couple of soldiers have gone too far? I don't dispute that. Hell, we've prosecuted a couple of soldiers. Rightly or wrongly I cannot say. But giving the justice system its due, let's say that convictions mean that a couple of soldiers DID go too far. Is THAT what the General was talking about?

If it is, he's at least partly right. That kind of behavior DOES justifiably give us a black eye. Perhaps that's partly why we deem it criminal and prosecute the alleged offenders, though! Oddly, we get no "credit" from our international critics (or from any of the domestic brand of libbies) when we do the latter.

Possibly the General meant that we went BEYOND water-boarding? And if we did, perhaps he's suggesting that such behavior (authorized behavior??) is violative of the GC? Maybe. But if THAT'S what the General was saying, it needs to be fleshed out, qualified and quantified.

And there's not a single "guest" here at Hannity who can answer these questions. There ARE quite a few libbies, though, who will argue that the ambiguous suggestion (or the "belief") of the General is somehow conclusive proof that "we" suck.
I always enjoy your posts for their well reasoned responses and in general, no pun intended, I fully agree with what you say, with one exception.

Liberals do not think we "suck", they think we are better than this. Why defend ourselves to preserve the freedom and integrity we pride ourselves on when we sacrifice them to defend it?

If we defend ourselves and lose ourselves in the process, is it worth it?

[Liability]

To all detainees in US custody under any and all circumstances.

They are entitled to additional protections if they meet the standards of POW. Which they do not.

That's a very odd interpretation:

Sure, we signed it, but we didn't ratify it so nomrally it wouldn't be binding on our behavior but since so much of the rest of the world seems to have adopted it, it takes on the aura of customary international law, so notwithstanding that we haven't ratified it, we are bound by it....

I realize that reasonable men may differ. And on that call, I do. I think a much better case can be made that it doesn't apply to our behavior one iota.

[toreyj01]

You're correct. He's already got his "20" in. But Obama could, just as Clinton, when a general opposed him, would boot the general minus a star. That does indeed affect retirement benefits as well as potential high-salaried civil service appointments.

Yeah like this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

Oh wait..

[SFC(R)L]

That's a very odd interpretation:

Sure, we signed it, but we didn't ratify it so nomrally it wouldn't be binding on our behavior but since so much of the rest of the world seems to have adopted it, it takes on the aura of customary international law, so notwithstanding that we haven't ratified it, we are bound by it....

I realize that reasonable men may differ. And on that call, I do. I think a much better case can be made that it doesn't apply to our behavior one iota.

I could easily argue that side of the argument, and have read competent opinion as such.

I don't think we can argue the common article or the President's Order.

[toreyj01]

Has King David changed his positions since Obamessiah took office?

Show me one instance of him defending advanced interrogation/torture.

Show me one instance of him saying that we haven't made any mistakes.

Perhaps he hasn't changed his position, perhaps this is the first time he has been asked it.

[Trip]

All of our conduct is supported by the Geneva Conventions. IN FACT importing the detainees into the United States for trial here is specifically prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

These detainees are unlawful combatants, terrorists, and as such they have no protected status in any one of the Geneva Conventions.

[SFC(R)L]

The General stated plainly that he formed his views as a Division Commander in 2003, and that he has not changed them in this time is no mystery.

Those opining otherwise are simply upset that their hero has taken a stance they dislike and therefore choose to attack him for it.

[toreyj01]

Hasn't the US over the last 40 years applied the Geneva convention standards against tyrants such as Chauchesku (sp?), Milosevic, and other thugs?

If we apply it to others, we are subject to it ourselves, I would think.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

...Petraeus is a moron.

Wow

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

The General stated plainly that he formed his views as a Division Commander in 2003, and that he has not changed them in this time is no mystery.

Those opining otherwise are simply upset that their hero has taken a stance they dislike and therefore choose to attack him for it.

Yep. It's kind of weird to watch.

[McCoyFan]

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article Vi, paragraph 2, is the supreme law of the land.

So let it be written, so let it be done.


its not like treaties are etched in stone


...democrat Andrew Jackson and the many indian treaties he ignored and broken to enact the Indian Removal Act


...the democrats cut off funding to South Vietnam in violation of the SEATO treaty to defend and protect South Vietnam


...if Clntion can use Executive Order 13107 to implement U.N. treaties, whether ratified by the U.S. Senate or not.

then any President has the executive power to null and void any part or all of a teaty whether ratified by the U.S. Senate or not


Treaty obligations can be terminated in a variety of ways.


The President can abrogate a treaty unilaterally, witout obtaining the consent of Congress or the Senate, as Jimmy Carter did in 1978 iwth the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954 with the Republic of China (Taiwan).

[SFC(R)L]

its not like treaties are etched in stone


...democrat Andrew Jackson and the many indian treaties he ignored and broken to enact the Indian Removal Act


...the democrats cut off funding to South Vietnam in violation of the SEATO treaty to defend and protect South Vietnam


...if Clntion can use Executive Order 13107 to implement U.N. treaties, whether ratified by the U.S. Senate or not.

then any President has the executive power to null and void any part or all of a teaty whether ratified by the U.S. Senate or not


Treaty obligations can be terminated in a variety of ways.


The President can abrogate a treaty unilaterally, witout obtaining the consent of Congress or the Senate, as Jimmy Carter did in 1978 iwth the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954 with the Republic of China (Taiwan).

The Constitution rules.

Who is the check on presidential power?

[SFC(R)L]

Yep. It's kind of weird to watch.

Gruesome was more what I was thinking.

[Cutiepie]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him




terrorists do NOT fall under the Geneva Convention. They do NOT wear uniforms.

[SFC(R)L]

terrorists do NOT fall under the Geneva Convention. They do NOT wear uniforms.

You're exactly wrong.

[McCoyFan]

The Constitution rules.

Who is the check on presidential power?


the Geneva Convention is between the countries and orgainzations (i.e. red cross) that signed on


when did Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida sign the Geneva Convention ?


so techincally Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida are not under the protection of the Geneva Convention

[Trip]

You're exactly wrong.

Cutiepie is pretty much on target.

Terrorists violate the means that qualify them as POWs. They do not wear any form of insignia, they do not answer to a recognized chain of command, and they do not carry their arms openly. As such they are unlawful combatants. To be covered under GC-IV and have protected status they would have to not be engaged in active combat. EoS.

[SFC(R)L]

the Geneva Convention is between the countries and orgainzations (i.e. red cross) that signed on


when did Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida sign the Geneva Convention ?


so techincally Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida are not under the protection of the Geneva Convention

You're exactly wrong

technically they are individual unlawful combatants who may be killed on sight. Should they be captured, they are protected by common article 3 as we are bound by the provisions thereof.

very simple, really.

[McCoyFan]

You're exactly wrong

technically they are individual unlawful combatants who may be killed on sight. Should they be captured, they are protected by common article 3 as we are bound by the provisions thereof.

very simple, really.

..not that simple


Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

Reservation made upon signature and maintained upon ratification

"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"



http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument

[SFC(R)L]

..not that simple


Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

Reservation made upon signature and maintained upon ratification

"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"



http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument



(ii) Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons … placed hors de combat by … detention,” including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences … without previous judgment … by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character. ” That reasoning is erroneous. That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory “accepts and applies” those terms. Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65–68.

(iii) While Common Article 3 does not define its “regularly constituted court” phrase, other sources define the words to mean an “ordinary military cour[t]” that is “established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country.” The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statute. At a minimum, a military commission can be “regularly constituted” only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice. No such need has been demonstrated here. Pp. 69–70.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

While this decision comments upon the rights of the accused, and the manner by which they are tried, some of which may be subject to debate, what is not in question is that common article 3 applies to these persons. In order to sentence them to death, they must be tried as outlined in common article 3, and those standards must be met in order to pass such a sentence. Accordingly, we had to revamp the procedures by which these persons were being tried by commisssion to include those measures deemed appropriate by the article. Logically, the article must applied in whole, not in part, and once in detention, these persons must be treated humanely. It is my view they have no right of habeus corpus, nor right to Constitutional protections, but they are subject to common article 3 for trial alone.

Following their trial by commission, as required by article 3, they should be hung by the neck until dead.

[SFC(R)L]

..not that simple


Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

Reservation made upon signature and maintained upon ratification

"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"



http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument



so this reference is not even relevant at all to the matter at hand.

[Trip]

Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65–68.



Geneva Conventions:

But also from the Geneva Conventions (plural), to be defined as a POW one must first be a "lawful combatant":

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

Article II of CCIII defines the applicability of the Geneva Conventions:

That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

These detainees are thereby "unlawful combatants" who have not recognized the Geneva Conventions in any form and DO NOT 1) have a recognized chain of command 2) wear any sort of distinctive uniform 3) carry their arms openly.

Given the fact that these non-signatories have NOT been bound in any fashion to these terms, they are in no way protected by the Geneva Conventions.

[Liability]

You're exactly wrong.

No. She's not. She's quite right. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and, for the most part, they have no protection under the GC and they deserve no such protection. Any "interpretation" that says otherwise is misguided, largely dangerous and borders on foolish.

[Liability]

(ii) Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons … placed hors de combat by … detention,” including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences … without previous judgment … by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character. ” That reasoning is erroneous. That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory “accepts and applies” those terms. Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65–68.

(iii) While Common Article 3 does not define its “regularly constituted court” phrase, other sources define the words to mean an “ordinary military cour[t]” that is “established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country.” The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statute. At a minimum, a military commission can be “regularly constituted” only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice. No such need has been demonstrated here. Pp. 69–70.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

While this decision comments upon the rights of the accused, and the manner by which they are tried, some of which may be subject to debate, what is not in question is that common article 3 applies to these persons. In order to sentence them to death, they must be tried as outlined in common article 3, and those standards must be met in order to pass such a sentence. Accordingly, we had to revamp the procedures by which these persons were being tried by commisssion to include those measures deemed appropriate by the article. Logically, the article must applied in whole, not in part, and once in detention, these persons must be treated humanely. It is my view they have no right of habeus corpus, nor right to Constitutional protections, but they are subject to common article 3 for trial alone.

Following their trial by commission, as required by article 3, they should be hung by the neck until dead.


So, they should be either shot on sight OR captured, given a military tribunal (which the libs vacillate on) and then IF convicted, they may be executed.

On the assumption that a fair tribunal would get their filthy asses convicted, it would sure save a lot of time and exposure to simply take the position that summary execution for terrorists is the only rational policy.

[Liability]

Geneva Conventions:

But also from the Geneva Conventions (plural), to be defined as a POW one must first be a "lawful combatant":

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

Article II of CCIII defines the applicability of the Geneva Conventions:

That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

These detainees are thereby "unlawful combatants" who have not recognized the Geneva Conventions in any form and DO NOT 1) have a recognized chain of command 2) wear any sort of distinctive uniform 3) carry their arms openly.

Given the fact that these non-signatories have NOT been bound in any fashion to these terms, they are in no way protected by the Geneva Conventions.


I believe that SFC(R)L recognizes that captured illegal enemy combatants (i.e. Islamic scumbag terrorists) are not POWs.

I believe his contention is that they are nevertheless granted certain minimal protections under the "common" provisions of the GC, not based on their status or non status as signatories, but based on the fact that WE are signatories and are thus somehow obliged to treat them in accordance with those minimal standards applicable to even non-signatories.

I don't agree with him or with the SCOTUS, but it seems that the SCOTUS agrees with SCF(R)L. I think.

[SFC(R)L]

I believe that SFC(R)L recognizes that captured illegal enemy combatants (i.e. Islamic scumbag terrorists) are not POWs.

I believe his contention is that they are nevertheless granted certain minimal protections under the "common" provisions of the GC, not based on their status or non status as signatories, but based on the fact that WE are signatories and are thus somehow obliged to treat them in accordance with those minimal standards applicable to even non-signatories.

I don't agree with him or with the SCOTUS, but it seems that the SCOTUS agrees with SCF(R)L. I think.

Captured terrorists are unlawful combatants. They are NOT POW. I have been saying that for about 3 years. They are not entitled to POW status.

However, we are obliged to abide by the GC on all occasions, and common article 3 applies and this is reflected in the President's Military Order of 13 NOV 01. Therefore we must treat them humanely.

I don't agree with all of the SCOTUS decision, either. I don't agree that they even have jurisdiction.

[SFC(R)L]

So, they should be either shot on sight OR captured, given a military tribunal (which the libs vacillate on) and then IF convicted, they may be executed.

On the assumption that a fair tribunal would get their filthy asses convicted, it would sure save a lot of time and exposure to simply take the position that summary execution for terrorists is the only rational policy.

They may be engaged in combat; summary execution is a war crime and a grave breach of the GC.

[Gray]

Without the GC, what rights does an unlawful combatant have? Any? If so, what is the standard?

By fighting without a uniform or under any nation's flag.....No rights whatsoever. He is meat.

[Liability]

Captured terrorists are unlawful combatants. They are NOT POW. I have been saying that for about 3 years. They are not entitled to POW status.

However, we are obliged to abide by the GC on all occasions, and common article 3 applies and this is reflected in the President's Military Order of 13 NOV 01. Therefore we must treat them humanely.

I don't agree with all of the SCOTUS decision, either. I don't agree that they even have jurisdiction.

In other words, sir, I think I pretty much summarized your position accurately. Note: I did not ascribe to you anything suggesting that you deem the SCOTUS ruling or other official military or Presidential determinations on the matter to be wise.

In fact, I still deny that the so-called Common Article 3 applies AT ALL to captured terrorists. My denial does not go so far as to argue that YOU are somehow wrong in saying that the current law seems to say that Common Article 3 does apply even to captured Islamoscum terrorists.

I pretty much find myself agreeing with your view of the current state of legal analysis on the issue while I continue to insist that the current legal analysis, rulings etc are quite misguided. I ALSO agree with your suggestion that the SCOTUS had no jurisidiction in this matter.

[Liability]

They may be engaged in combat; summary execution is a war crime and a grave breach of the GC.

Summary execution of pirates for piracy is not a violation of international law. Their actions could be called "combat" if we decide that words no longer have actual meaning.

No.

Summary execution of a non-uniformed illegal enemy combatant (a terrorist) is no different than a summary execution of a literal pirate. It is not a violation of international law, it is not a crime and it is not a grave breach of the GC.

The suggestion that some Islamic terrorist might be said to be engaging in "combat" strips the word "combat" of its actual meaning.

Hell, if some idiot breaks into my house tonight, armed with a gun and a knife and starts behaving violently toward any member of my family (or my dog for that matter), I have a legal right to subject him to an instantaneous death penalty. A filthy scumbag terrorist is not deserving of any greater protections.

[Gray]

I ALSO agree with your suggestion that the SCOTUS had no jurisidiction in this matter.

Correct.

It then logically follows that the other co-equal branches (in this case the congress) failed in it's duty to America.

[Cletus Wilbury]

So, they should be either shot on sight OR captured, given a military tribunal (which the libs vacillate on) and then IF convicted, they may be executed.
....

Perhaps the Lib position is misunderstood. At least speaking for myself, there is no problem with a military tribunal. There were legal problems with the way the Bush administration wanted to run the trials however. 5 of 8 of the SCOTUS agreed on that point. (Hamdan)

I admit I don't know the specifics.

High court blocks Gitmo military tribunals (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html)

...
"The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional act," said Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority.
The tribunals, he said, "must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law."
"In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive [Bush] is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Stevens wrote.
"Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check,' " Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a concurring opinion. "Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here."
...

[Cletus Wilbury]

It seems some people think having a fair trial is some 'right' that is afforded to some people.

I argue that a fair trial is something we as a society should insist upon. Don't we want to be assured that the real culprits are prosecuted?

I see the courts as part of the process I call justice. It's not just a right for the accused.

[Cletus Wilbury]

What do people think about legitimacy?

Doesn't it kinda sound like empathy?

[Liability]

What do people think about legitimacy?

Doesn't it kinda sound like empathy?

No. But they DO both end in "y." So, you aren't completely wrong.

[Liability]

The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/



General Petraeus is one Hell of a man....I applaud him

I still say the General is being very unclear. WHAT actions (specifically) did the U.S. ever take which violated the GC? When? Where?

If such (alleged?) violations happened under HIS command, has the General just declared himself guilty of some not yet charged war crimes? Did he fail to take proper action to prevent us from committing such (aleged?) violations of the GC?

I believe General David Petraeus needs to clarify whatever it was he was trying to say.

[Cletus Wilbury]

No. But they DO both end in "y." So, you aren't completely wrong.

I claim one needs to demonstrate empathy to have legitimacy.

[Liability]

I claim one needs to demonstrate empathy to have legitimacy.

I say empathy actually does have some place in the heart and mind of any reasonable person. Reasonableness is a good attribute for a Judge.

But empathy doesn't properly play much of a legitimate role in legal analysis at the appellate level. So, in that light, too much empathy constitutes a rather pronounced illegitimacy.

[Cletus Wilbury]

I say empathy actually does have some place in the heart and mind of any reasonable person. Reasonableness is a good attribute for a Judge.

But empathy doesn't properly play much of a legitimate role in legal analysis at the appellate level. So, in that light, too much empathy constitutes a rather pronounced illegitimacy.


Good point.

[kaspiahn]

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...I thought terrorists were unlawful combatants and didn't fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which means we can do with them whateverthehell we please. :doh:

Unfortunately that's not true. Our enemies are afforded protection under the Geneva Convention, however they are not required to return the favor. They violate it and we just have to "suck it up" and be the morally supieror force. That's not always easy to do. Sometimes we slip and make mistakes.

[Cletus Wilbury]

.... Our enemies are afforded protection under the Geneva Convention, however they are not required to return the favor. They violate it and we just have to "suck it up" ...

They can be prosecuted for violations, too.

[Cletus Wilbury]

I find SFC(R)L's post on this issue to be exemplary. General Petraeus has recently agreed with the same points.

[scott7264]

The now-Central Command chief said he believed that banning the more extreme techniques had taken away “a tool” employed by “our enemies” as a moral argument against the United States.

I like that. They have taken away a tool used as a moral argument. One less thing to worry about. We don't want any terrorists getting their hands on those bad boys. As long as they only have bombs, or airplanes, or dirty bombs, we have nothing to worry about. But those damned moral arguments...


Asked about a “ticking time bomb” scenario — which is often employed by torture’s defenders — Petraeus said that interrogation methods approved for use in the Army Field Manual were generally sufficient. "There might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with but for the vast majority of the cases our experience… is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them, those techniques work, that’s our experience in this business,” he said.

Let's see... waterboarding was used what? Three times? Doesn't that sound like an exception? And from what we understand, we got information that directly averted additional attacks that were already planned. (Although we can't say for sure, since Barry won't release the rest of the memos.) Doesn't that sound like a ticking time bomb?

They try to make it sound like it's something we were doing every day until Obama got into office. So Barry banned something that we weren't using anymore. But Petraeus says that under certain extraordinary circumstances, enhanced interrogation might be necessary. He just doesn't think that preventing further terror attacks on U.S. soil after 9-11 was sufficiently extraordinary. That's a convenient position to take in retrospect. If he had said it out loud on 9-12, he would have been run out of town on a rail.

[JQR]

I am not surprised by the good general's comments.
People need to remember that the enhanced interrogation techniques were not something proposed or advocated by the military, in fact most were against it.

It was not the military that came up with these novel interpretations of the law to allow the EIT's far from it.
And opposition to the program came from both the Pentagon and CENCOM as well as the FBI, while the VP's office and the CIA were all for it.

And when the military set up GITMO, they did exactly what they were supposed to do, what they always done, they set up a well organized military prison where the prisoners were treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, because that is what they have always done, that's what they knew.

It wasn't until the CIA and Cheney's boys got involved when GITMO was turned into a torture chamber.
And Gen. Petraeus is no yes man, if he didn't agree with the president's policy on closing GITMO or the stopping EIT program he would have dodged the question rather than lie and feign support.

[Cletus Wilbury]

...They have taken away a tool used as a moral argument. One less thing to worry about....

I ask, what are we trying to do in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Proposal:
We are trying to establish governments that are more favorable to our system.

I suggest that is our primary goal. If one accepts that, then it seems reasonable that we shouldn't do things that contradict that goal.

I admit that the goal of interdicting terrorist attacks is also valid.

But I'm suggesting one must weigh the the two goals. General Petraeus has commented on that consideration recently, and Fox News is covering it up.

[Cletus Wilbury]

I am not surprised by the good general's comments.
People need to remember that the enhanced interrogation techniques were not something proposed or advocated by the military, in fact most were against it.....

Agreed. I have not been a member of the military, but have been one who has read commentary on strategic issues for many years.

(I was in the Navy for one year, NROTC scholarship at Oregon State, Drill Team member, and 2 months on the USS Henderson DD summer of '72, kicked out for pot smoking)

[just simple common sense]

Thank goodness the military still upholds its standards.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Thank goodness the military still upholds its standards.

Yes, but sometimes politicians try to tell the military how to do their job. This can happen from the left or the right.

[just simple common sense]

I will say one thing. You might have the right to comment and give your
opinion but until you have crawled a mile with a soldier or lived for days in
his foxhole and ate the same meals and suffered the same hardships, just for once think of him before you have any sympathy for the enemy. Try
being an American for once in your life. We have enough enemies across the
world without you supporting them.

[scott7264]

And as for the alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions... it's not quite that cut-and-dried. Petraeus knows that, but some of you obviously don't. The U.S. is far from the first country to deal with "unlawful combattants" in relation to the Geneva Conventinos. We may not have handled the Gitmo detainees properly under U.S. domestic law, but there are very compelling arguments that they are not covered as "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions. Again - Petraeus knows that. He's playing politics, and he's become as putrid as most other politicians.

For the record, the Third Geneva Convention deals with the treatment of POW's, and the Fourth deals with the treatment of civilians. Articles 4 of each describes who are considered "protected persons" under the Conventions. You can see that they are definitely excluded as POW's, and they are almost certainly not covered as civilians either. (Some of them are most definitely not covered as civilians, as they are citizens of other countries with whom we have normal diplomatic relations.) The people getting all their info from MSNBC would be well advised to read a little before spouting their uninformed opinions.

[Edit: One more thing. Even the International Red Cross, who has been so critical of the status of "unlawful combattant" had to admit this much: This does not mean that the status of unlawful combatant does not exist because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents ... [and] They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".]

POW's:
A. 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, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) 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 [of civil ships and aircraft], 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. Civilians:
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. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are.

[Cletus Wilbury]

..but until you have crawled a mile with a soldier .....

I don't have that experience. I agree it's important. That's why I read the writings of those who do have that experience.

[just simple common sense]

Yes, but sometimes politicians try to tell the military how to do their job. This can happen from the left or the right.

Very true and then the confusion begins.

[Cletus Wilbury]

And as for the alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions... it's not quite that cut-and-dried. Petraeus knows that, but some of you obviously don't. ....

I agree that it's a very complicated issue.
The following is my analysis:

We've been using torture for a long time, but have always been able to deny it. But now we have everyone walking around with a camera in their pocket connected to the internet.

Interrogators realize this, and now demand legal cover. This is what has brought this issue to public concern.

[JQR]

I agree that it's a very complicated issue.
The following is my analysis:

We've been using torture for a long time, but have always been able to deny it. But now we have everyone walking around with a camera in their pocket connected to the internet.

Interrogators realize this, and now demand legal cover. This is what has brought this issue to public concern.

Actually this is the first time the White House specifically endorsed the use of torture in writing and described in detail what techniques were to be used.

[Liability]

Actually this is the first time the White House specifically endorsed the use of torture in writing and described in detail what techniques were to be used.

Wrong. The NEXT time such a memo is written will be the FIRST time the WH ever endorsed the use of torture.

To date, it has never been endorsed by any Administration in memo or any other form.

Just because you may consider waterboarding to be torture doesn't make it torture.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Actually this is the first time the White House specifically endorsed the use of torture in writing and described in detail what techniques were to be used.

That's what I was thinking, we never admitted it before.

[Liability]

That's what I was thinking, we never admitted it before.


We still haven't. Probably because we don't employ it.

[JQR]

Wrong. The NEXT time such a memo is written will be the FIRST time the WH ever endorsed the use of torture.

To date, it has never been endorsed by any Administration in memo or any other form.

Just because you may consider waterboarding to be torture doesn't make it torture.

Just because Cheney believes it isn't torture doesn't make it right either.
But tell me, what other president specifically endorsed the use of waterboarding?
If there is nothing wrong with it, why did it take 200+ years for this to happen?
It's not like waterboarding was invented yesterday.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Wrong....

Some historical records might contradict that, especially after the Reagan era stuff gets released. Of course the other side was doing the same stuff.

[just simple common sense]

What amazes me is that the democrates found a way to politicize this war to regain congress and then the predidency. This in my opinion is the reason
torture was brought up. They started with Abu Grave then on to Gitmo.
They then opposed the war that they voted for. This was their platform
along with a simple word called change. This is their party and I can verily
easily see way you that support such a low road no longer give respect to
this country and its methods of defence. You value the enemy more and
their rights to attack us than you do your own country. God help us all.