dick thompson.... sometimes just isn't so.....the matter is settled as
law, like it or not..... there are a lot of things that I don't agree
with either, that are still law, which I dispute.... but I can't get
"legal" redress.... if I want my sense of justice in those matters, I
have to find it elsewhere...
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/AP-Guantanamo-Geneva-Conventions.html
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Here is the text of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which
the Bush administration acknowledged on Tuesday applies to terror war
detainees held by the United States:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,
each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including
members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse
distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or
wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned
persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court
affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of
the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into
force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other
provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal
status of the Parties to the conflict.
On Oct 7, 4:40 pm, dick <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As I recall during WW II we were best buds with the Soviets. That
> changed right after the war was over as you may recall and the Soviets
> became our enemies. The same with Osama and the US. Osame was the
> lesser of two evils between the Soviets and the Taliban. Once the
> Soviets were no more, then the Taliban with its actions became an
> enemy. Easy peasy to explain that one.
>
> As to the Geneva Convention the terrorists were not noncombatants. They
> were unlawful combatants which is a totally different thing and makes
> them not covered by the Geneva Convention.
>
> The full range of our rights is not available to the unlawful
> combatants. Different thing from what you are trying to bloviate about.
>
> On 10/07/2010 04:12 PM, nominal9 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Geneva Conventions are for uniformed army from national
> > governments.
> > Where do you get that these terrorists are therefore covered by the
> > Geneva Conventions. dick
>
> > Hi dick , First... I am not a lawyer.... but I do read some such
> > stuff, on occassion.... just to keep an eye on the real
> > liars.....Anyway, I have read portions of the Geneva Convention that
> > extend treaty protections to non-uniformed combatants or just plaint
> > indigenoue=s peopel caught in the middle or "suspected.... do you
> > really want to make me look it up?... it would be a bother....http://
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention....
> > Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only
> > article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international
> > conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered
> > to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed
> > conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship
> > or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their
> > arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to
> > wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be
> > treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal
> > dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The
> > passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly
> > constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are
> > recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's
> > protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war.
> > Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should
> > endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or
> > part of the other provisions of GCIII.
>
> > As to the Abu Ghraib photos, those were not military trials. As to
> > the
> > perps there they had been removed and were having their trials set up
> > when the story was broadcast. The military had already publicized
> > the
> > Abu Ghraib case months before Seymour Hersch wrote his articles. The
> > officers had been removed, the NCO's were under indictment and the
> > case
> > was being handled by the military at the time the story broke. It
> > was
> > the media that blew that up and caused the problems from Abu
> > Ghraib.
> > You should check somewhere other than Talking Points Memo before you
> > mention that. As I said, those were not trials and have no basis for
> > even being mentioned here./ dick
>
> > Well... my basis was your comment on the "inquisition" analogy.... I
> > was comparing some of the "punishments" imposed by ther Inquisition to
> > some of the Photographed punishment at Abu Ghraib... the photo of the
> > semi-naked prisoner with the pointed hood over his head, standing on a
> > stool with electrodes and wires dangling from his fingers particularly
> > evoked the Inquisitiion for me... the Inquisitioners were the first to
> > wear those sorts of pointy hoods, I think.... I don't know if the KKK
> > picked it up directly from them, or not.... Anyway.... association to
> > torture was my aim, not a strict allegation of trials for the
> > prisoners there.
>
> > I made no mention of denying rights to citizens. I was merely
> > suggesting that there is no basis in the Constitution or the case law
> > that would suggest that foreign nationals should be granted the
> > rights
> > that are granted citizens by the Constitution. Can you point to any?
>
> > Come on.... do you mean to tell me that a "foreign national" a tourist
> > for a week in the U.S. or someone on a limited visitor visa... if
> > charged with a crime here in the U.S. ... should not and would not be
> > accorded all rights and privileges under the Courts and Law as a U.S.
> > Citizen? Maybe you should look that one up.... But to your point.... I
> > want to try to find what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this GITMO
> > question during the Bush years....http://scholar.google.com/
> > scholar_case?case=2483936489630436485&q=Boumediene+v.
> > +Bush&hl=en&as_sdt=8002
> > there it is...... Boumediene v. Bush.... hope the link works for you I
> > could paste the decision but it is long.
>
> > It was the civilians, in particular a civilian lawyer, who was used
> > by
> > this sheik to pass orders to his group in Egypt. That would not
> > have
> > happened with the military. I think if that same case came before
> > the
> > court now with the benefit of hindsight the results would have been
> > different. I also think that had more cases come to the court the
> > weight of judging would have been different as well. It was the luck
> > of
> > the draw which case go to the SCOTUS first. The various cases in
> > the
> > chute came there from different results based on whether they came
> > from
> > the 9th Circuit Court or from a court that actually believed in the
> > Constitution.
>
> > As to your grieving, those seem like crocodile tears to me. "I
> > grieve
> > that because of my political beliefs your rights to protection from
> > terrorists have been denied. I grieve that my AG and her staff set
> > up
> > the wall that kept info from being passed between agencies. I
> > grieve
> > that the administration I supported for 8 years declined to take
> > charge
> > of Osama when he was offered. I grieve that the administration I
> > supported for 8 years declined to do anything when our embassies were
> > blown up. I grieve that when our troops and the ship they were on
> > were
> > attacked the administration I supported for 8 years sat back and did
> > nothing." There's your grief. Fat lot of good it did. / dick
>
> > Please do not question my "grief".... I have long stated that I wish
> > that each of the Dead U.S. 9/11 cilvilians and U.S. soldiers and
> > Coalition soldiers that have died in the Middle East could be replaced
> > by the misguided "leaders" and their political supporters who put them
> > in harm's way.....it should have been Bush/Cheney and the Neocons...
> > plus any of their other misguided supporters.... dead...
> > As for the Clinton Administration's handling of Osama bin Laden... I
> > do not disagree... but go back further... to the Soviet / Afghan
> > War....the U.S. supported Osama back then, too....What turned an "ally
> > " into an enemy, then? How about the Israeli/ Palestinian issue...
> > want to get into that one, too?
>
> > .
>
> > On Oct 6, 5:28 pm, dick<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> Geneva Conventions are for uniformed army from national governments.
> >> Where do you get that these terrorists are therefore covered by the
> >> Geneva Conventions.
>
> >> As to the Abu Ghraib photos, those were not military trials. As to the
> >> perps there they had been removed and were having their trials set up
> >> when the story was broadcast. The military had already publicized the
> >> Abu Ghraib case months before Seymour Hersch wrote his articles. The
> >> officers had been removed, the NCO's were under indictment and the case
> >> was being handled by the military at the time the story broke. It was
> >> the media that blew that up and caused the problems from Abu Ghraib.
> >> You should check somewhere other than Talking Points Memo before you
> >> mention that. As I said, those were not trials and have no basis for
> >> even being mentioned here.
>
> >> I made no mention of denying rights to citizens. I was merely
> >> suggesting that there is no basis in the Constitution or the case law
> >> that would suggest that foreign nationals should be granted the rights
> >> that are granted citizens by the Constitution. Can you point to any?
>
> >> It was the civilians, in particular a civilian lawyer, who was used by
> >> this sheik to pass orders to his group in Egypt. That would not have
> >> happened with the military. I think if that same case came before the
> >> court now with the benefit of hindsight the results would have been
> >> different. I also think that had more cases come to the court the
> >> weight of judging would have been different as well. It was the luck of
> >> the draw which case go to the SCOTUS first. The various cases in the
> >> chute came there from different results based on whether they came from
> >> the 9th Circuit Court or from a court that actually believed in the
> >> Constitution.
>
> >> As to your grieving, those seem like crocodile tears to me. "I grieve
> >> that because of my political beliefs your rights to protection from
> >> terrorists have been denied. I grieve that my AG and her staff set up
> >> the wall that kept info from being passed between agencies. I grieve
> >> that the administration I supported for 8 years declined to take charge
> >> of Osama when he was offered. I grieve that the administration I
> >> supported for 8 years declined to do anything when our embassies were
> >> blown up. I grieve that when our troops and the ship they were on were
> >> attacked the administration I supported for 8 years sat back and did
> >> nothing." There's your grief. Fat lot of good it did.
>
> >> On 10/06/2010 05:01 PM, nominal9 wrote:
>
> >>> Why do you compare military trials to medieval
> >>> trials. Are you saying that the military trials our military are
> >>> tried
> >>> under are the equivalent of The Inquisition? / dick
>
> >>> Something about the Abu Ghraib photos suggested it to
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment