Yesterday I put the TV on C-SPAN as I was cleaning because there was nothing on. Every once in a while I hear something interesting. While the debate for the Attorney General was going on, Senator kennedy was grilling Alberto Gonzales on his stance on President Bush,the prisoner abuse, interrogation scandals and brought up the Geneva Convention. After Kennedy was done, a republican senator said that according to the Geneva Convention, members of al-Qaeda and some Iraqi insurgents do not qualify for the rights granted to POW's. I looked at the Geneva Convention and the Senator is right. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War is clear on the subject.

Article 4

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, fulfil 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.

There is more to Article 4, but it does not pertain to the al-Qaeda and Iraqi prisoners.


I am not defending the abuses that has gone on. Those are totally wrong. But some of the interrogation techniques used by the US are not illegal as some groups have said. I know this is a highly debated issue and I am interested as to what people think.

Geneva Convention

fuel to the fire here but;

just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

fuel to the fire here but;

just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it right.

You are right, to me it comes down to "What does the US stand for?", and it is not the techniques that were used...

As a major world power we are looked to for setting the standard. This is going to be an extremely difficult tightrope to walk. When people are willing to employ inhuman means to their ends at what point do we not counter their moves? I think the point must be when you become what you hate. We cannot employ their methods and so we must accept that weakness as our dole. Our strength, however, must be the example of a better life. People must believe in us or we defeat ourselves before any action is taken to counter the threat because in the minds of others we become just another threat. That must never be allowed to be the case. The Geneva Convention was setup as a guideline for combat between nations. Not every nation has signed it though. A prime example was Japan in WWII. We at times acted quite brutally to them in kind for the brutality they showed us, but we did not break the rules of the Convention. Japan did, but as non-signers they did not suffer the consequences of that. Nothing was ever done about their use of our personnel for slave labor for example. So in short, the Convention is not the final word on the conduct of warfare, it is merely the start.

It's sort of like when two boxers meet in the middle of the ring, you know they are making promises they don't intend to keep. If they do, the other guy will beat the snot out of him. Most of the inhumane treatment of prisoners has been isolated and through fear for their life or battle fatigue. I will never judge the actions of a soldier in a battle situation that seems to go on indefinitely. The natural instinct to lash out must be overwhelming at time when fighting against such an enemy as this.

That was a good lesson, I have never known that the Geneva Convention had any parts in it that actually made any sence when it come to this terrorist threat. "I guess there will not be any free vacationer trips to Hawaii for this Insurgents and al-Qaeda members after all." Long nose to the terrorist friends then. There is still hope - justice - for them that needs it most and fast. 8)

Cheers:
Doc.S

i was talking to my SSGT today and he just finished a tour in Iraq. He told me that the key to the terrorist is that if you start being inhumane to the opposing forces it will bleed over into your unit and that will start hurting your unit's morale.

This is a hard issue to talk about. The liberal side of me wants to say they deserve fair treatment. However the other side wants to say that ' they didn't respect genevea when they blew up our towers why should we respect when we are blowing them up' Please not that is only for the taliban side of it.

Well, yeah, Californian member Eric made the point about that. The Geneva convention does not protect terrorists from torture.
It doesn't make it morally right to use torture or coercion on a regular basis, but liberals can't at least call out for the Convention.
It's pretty much a line drawn between what is a regular soldier operating and fighting according to international war law and what is a mere terrorist.

What rules can be made up about terroists? Like they are gonna stick by them, ok apart from the warning the attakced before they bomb or what ever, i think thats the only part that a terroist prganising has acutally kept to.

Genieve convention has gone down the pan in the last 2 yrs esp with the gulf kicking off. People speka about morals..............what morals?