Bufotenin
Posts: 66
Joined: 9/23/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Well the status question is either/or. like being pregnant. And they are not "protected people". They are not civilains, to treat them as such makes a mockery of the entire Geneva process. So would ripping out thier fingernails and pouring acid on thier faces, which isn't what is occuring. It says in case of trial, not that trials are mandatory. The millitary tribunal process has been screwed up in several ways, I can't deny that. At the time that America decides it security needs are met, they are to be given full Protected Person status. Since that has not yet occured they do not yet have PP status. There are still requirements to treat them humanely. But thier being held with out communication/in secret/deneyed lawyers was a large part of thier claim, and it is explicitly allowed under Geneva. I see no reason to believe that, according to wording of the Geneva Conventions, they're anyting other than "protected persons". As I said, nothing in article 5 indicates that they be fully stripped of 'protected person' status, it solely exempts them from the right of communication and states that they be returned the full rights of 'protected person' status. While it does seem a mockery of the Conventions to classify them as civilians due to their role in the conflict, the option would be to classify them as POW's under Convention 3, Article 4, Sections 2 and 6. Though subsection (b) of part 2 would, in most cases, be inapplicable, we would still be in better compliance to the Conventions than we currently are. I concede that the Geneva Conventions probably need updating (or replacing), as they fail to adequately address the issue of non-uniform combatants (of which the U.S., too, has plenty of in our employ). I don't even believe that a strict adherence to the Conventions, as written, is possible, due to the nature of the enemy. What I argue is that the administration should attempt , to the best of their ability, to adhere to the Conventions, provide access to due process (in order to ensure true civilians aren't detained indefinitely), and at least appear to be concerned about human rights in stead of flaunting loopholes. It took years to even get trials for the detainees, some have been found to be non-combatants, countless others have been released and deported without any knowledge of the evidence against them, and they've refused to take an open stance against defined methods of torture. Under the standards currently applied by the U.S. anyone in a hostile region becomes potentially subject to indefinite detention and physical coercion, regardless of whether or not they're a genuine party to the conflict.
|